Georgetown, Guyana — In the high-profile Commission of Inquiry (COI) into Guyana’s controversial 2020 General and Regional Elections, the much-anticipated testimony from Rosalina Rasul, the American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (AmCham) observer, revealed chaotic scenes and procedural missteps at the GECOM Command Centre, but failed to establish a direct link between the accused election officials and any coordinated effort to manipulate the vote.
Rasul, who now holds a senior position within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, appeared before the commission for a second day, presenting video and audio recordings capturing the tension and confusion during the tabulation of votes for Region Four, the electoral district at the heart of the controversy.
Despite the dramatic footage showing heavily armed TSU officers clearing the building, loud objections from party agents, and accusations of “fictitious numbers” being inserted into the count, no concrete evidence was provided to directly tie any individual to deliberate electoral fraud.
“There’s chaos, certainly, but chaos is not a crime,” one legal analyst, who requested anonymity due to the politically sensitive nature of the inquiry, commented. “Thus far, there’s no smoking gun.”
The neutrality of Rasul’s testimony has raised eyebrows. Though she purportedly served as an independent observer during the election under the AmCham banner, she now occupies an influential role within the current government, a fact that some say casts a shadow over the impartiality of her statements.
“It’s hard to ignore the fact that Ms. Rasul is now a political appointee,” said an anonymous source familiar with the proceedings. “Her current ties to the administration could influence the narrative, intentionally or not.”
Critics argue that while Rasul provided a detailed chronology of the chaos during the vote tabulation, her testimony seemed more focused on illustrating disorder rather than delivering clear evidence of electoral tampering.
Central to Rasul’s testimony was the Region Four Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo’s controversial use of spreadsheets over the original Statements of Poll (SOPs).
Rasul testified that on March 12, 2020, Mingo abandoned the SOPs in favor of data from his own compiled spreadsheets, leading to immediate objections from party agents.
Mingo defended his method, insisting, “The numbers I have on the spreadsheet are the numbers I have extracted from the original Statements of Polls that were issued to me.” When challenged, he curtly responded, “If you have yours, follow!”
Yet, again, no hard evidence has been produced to show that the numbers on Mingo’s spreadsheets were falsified or intentionally altered.
Rasul recounted that on March 13, 2020, the tabulation process was inexplicably moved to another room in the Ashmins Building, a decision that only deepened the confusion. Observers and party agents quickly noticed further discrepancies between the numbers being called out and the official SOPs.
The issue was escalated to then Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, who allegedly stated, “The commissioners are of the view that if we cannot in an orderly way resolve the problem, whatever it is, I don’t know, I wasn’t here. My broadsheet is working, you are saying it doesn’t work.”
Despite the procedural irregularities, the Commission has yet to establish any intentional wrongdoing or direct manipulation of the vote count.
The 2020 elections plunged Guyana into months of political uncertainty and international scrutiny. The COI was established to bring clarity and accountability, but the lack of irrefutable evidence tying accused officials to fraud has complicated the process. “We have confusion, mismanagement, and questionable decisions,” said the anonymous legal expert, “but we don’t yet have a definitive link to criminal intent.”
As the COI continues, questions loom over whether the inquiry is moving toward genuine accountability or if it risks becoming mired in political theater. “We must focus on facts, not optics,” the source warned. “Otherwise, we risk further undermining public trust in our electoral system.”
For now, the Commission is left with plenty of controversy—but still, no smoking gun.
