Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams Sc does not believe that the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) or the Commission could direct the Chief Election Officer (CEO) on what to include in his report under Article 177(2) (b) and section 96 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) Cap 1:03.
On Thursday GECOM Chairman, Justice Claudette Singh wrote CEO, Keith Lowenfield ordering to prepare and submit a Elections Report in accordance with the Certificates of Recount generated during the 33-day National Recount. Her instruction to Lowenfield comes one day after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and invalidated the Elections Report, which was submitted by Lowenfield on June 23. In her letter dated Thursday, July 9, 2020, the Chair of the Elections Commission told Chief Elections Officer that Section 18 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act stipulates that he is subject to the direction and control of the Commission. “In accordance with this section and pursuant to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, and Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03, you are hereby requested to prepare and submit your report on the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections by 2pm on 10th July, 2020, using the valid votes counted in the National Recount as per Certificates of Recount generated therefrom,” Justice Singh wrote in her letter to the Chief Elections Officer. The 10 Certificates of Recount, generated during the National Recount, showed a win for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) but the accompanying Observation Reports, which were mandated by Order 60 – the legal cover used to facilitate the recount – pointed to massive irregularities and close to 5,000 cases of voter impersonation – dead and migrant voters.
However, AG Williams in a statement said: “If the Chairman of GECOM advises the CEO as to what to put in his advice to the Commission, it would amount to a breach of the Constitution, since the Chairman of GECOM would be acting on her own advice and not acting only in accordance with the advice of the CEO, after such advice has been tendered to the Commission.”
According to Williams the framers and legislature envisaged that the CEO would independently prepare his advice under Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution and his report under section 96 (2) of ROPA, which has been constitutionalised by Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution and certainly without directions from GECOM or the Chairman, who must receive both at a duly constituted meeting and shall act on them. “GECOM cannot rely on section 18 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000 which provides that the CEO is subject to the direction and control of the Commission, because it would be in conflict with provisions of Article 177 (2) (b) aforesaid and section 96 of ROPA, which has been constitutionalized as aforesaid,” Williams argued.
He said Article 8 of the Constitution provides that “The Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana, and if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”. Williams also cited a case Justice of Appeal Fraser in the case of Collymore v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, 12 WIR pp.35-36, enunciated the classic supremacy of the Constitution thus: “No one not even Parliament can disobey the Constitution with impunity”.
