Dear Editor,
If the Chair of GECOM, Justice Claudette Singh, accepts the uninvited and ultra vires opinion of the CEO of GECOM, Keith Lowenfield, that the results of the recount are not credible and that by his account, only 185,000 of the 460,000 votes case are credible, Ms. Singh then faces a dilemma. First the embarrassment. GECOM is trashing its own
elections, which it conducted and which Justice Singh has said was free, fair and credible. With the known systems in place, impersonation is almost impossible. Yet GECOM allowed most of the 460,000 voters, less 180,000, to impersonate dead and migrated people.
If the recount proves that the results are not credible, as alleged, and Ms. Singh cannot use it to make a declaration, or is urged by some Commissioners to take such a reckless course, then Mr. Lowenfield’s declaration after the initial count would also be equally not credible because it was based on a count of the same votes. It would be the ultimate contradiction to decline to make a declaration on the recount results, but make one on the Lowenfield declaration. Logic suggests that Mr. Lowenfield’s conclusion on the recount has to apply equally to the count on which his declaration is based.
GECOM is required by law to make a declaration. Not to do so would be an egregious violation of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act and the Recount Order, all of which provide that a declaration be made. Parliament cannot now be recalled or constituted and the Government would not be able to continue in office except by dictatorial fiat. There would be no legal way out of the constitutional no man’s land that would emerge.
It has been suggested that Justice Singh could decline to support the making of a declaration on the recount, but support one on the Lowenfield declaration after the initial count, and call for new elections. It has been further suggested that Mr. Granger will accept this outcome and offer shared governance. If Justice Singh supports this or any other wholly unlawful course of action, she will destroy the electoral system and democracy in Guyana. Guyana will return to rigged elections, dictatorial rule, economic degradation, ethnic oppression, worse corruption, police harassment, imprisonment and killings, an unfree press, arrogance, vindictiveness and more, all of which Guyana experienced between 1968 and 1992. It will be another 25 to 50 years before Guyana wins its freedom again, if at all. Surely, this is not the legacy that Justice Singh wants to leave.
The Hon. Attorney General, Mr. Basil Williams S.C., issued a statement in support of the Lowenfield report. He relied on the recent Malawi case of Chilema and Chakwera v Mutharika and the Electoral Commission which ruled, after a trial, the presentation of evidence and findings of fact, that the elections in Malawi in 2019 was not free and fair due to violations which bear some similarity to some of the allegations made by APNU+AFC. What Mr. Williams did not say was that the decision was that of a court of law, given after a trial. It appears as if Mr. Williams is suggesting that the Lowenfield report on the recount be elevated to a decision by a court given after evidence and findings of fact on that evidence.
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran
