CJ says Region Four votes declaration invalid
-finds substantial ‘non-compliance’ by Mingo
Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire has ruled that the purported declaration of results for Region Four, by Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo, following the March 2nd general elections was unlawful as it did not conform with requirements in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
As a consequence, the declaration was set aside and the judge has ordered the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), given the urgency of the matter which is of national importance and interest, to begin bringing itself in conformity with the law, no later than 11 this morning.
Declaring the declaration null, void and of no effect, the Chief Justice also made it clear that there therefore could be no declaration of any final results of the elections, until the declaration of the vote count for electoral district four is properly done.
The Chief Election Officer she said, can make no final declaration until and unless this vote is completed in a transparent manner before the persons duly authorized to be present, a requirement which she said is mandatory and not merely directory as had been argued by counsel for the Commission.
This, she observed, would preserve the integrity of the process and ensure confidence in the Commission which is to be transparent, impartial and fair and to “publicly” declare results as required by the Act.
The judge found that there was “substantial non-compliance” with the law when Mingo declared the results, which vitiated the vote count for Region Four.
As a result, the judge granted the injunction sought by Opposition PPP/C supporter Reeaz Holladar to restrain the Election Commission from declaring any final result since the manner in which the purported declaration of votes for district four flouted the law.
Last Thursday, GECOM—a respondent in the matter, along with Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield and Mingo—controversially declared the results for the district, which show the incumbent APNU+AFC coalition securing 136,335 of the valid votes cast compared with 77,259 votes secured by the PPP/C.
Though the Chief Justice found the declaration to be unlawful, she made it clear that it is within the ambit of GECOM alone, to decide whether it will restart the process of tabulating and presenting the votes, or whether it will continue from where it had previously left off.
Also, Justice George-Wiltshire made it clear that it was for the RO, who alone has the statutory duty, to decide on the manner and method to be used for validating the vote count, and no one else.
Against this background the judge pointed out that observers and party agents alike have absolutely no say, though she said that the RO must act in a transparent, reasonable manner.
While the verification process of the tabulation of votes for district four had commenced earlier, last Thursday, it was halted with the understanding that it would be resumed later. However, following a commotion which erupted at GECOM’s command centre between local party observers on both the government and opposition sides, Mingo began announcing the results for district four.
His attempts were, however, drowned out by loud shouting from members of the opposition and other political parties. It was after this that GECOM’s Public Relations Officer Yolanda Ward disseminated the results to the media via WhatsApp.
The statutory Declaration Form 24 was signed by Mingo and countersigned by Volda Lawrence the incumbent incumbent APNU+AFC Counting Agent. All other Counting Agents refused to sign the document.
Noting that blame is to be assigned on all sides for the manner in which the proceedings degenerated into mayhem at the command centre, the judge said that greater responsibility needs to be shown by the political parties and respect for each other for the process to conclude.
The judge said that it was for the RO to decide in accordance with the law the way forward as well as the persons to be present during the tabulation process.
Section 86 (1) of the Act states that no person shall be present at the counting of votes except the Returning Officer and such other election officers as he may appoint to assist him in the counting, members of the
Commission, duly appointed candidates and such other persons as, in the opinion of the RO, have good reason to be present.
She said that it is therefore the RO who has the discretion regarding the prescribed persons to be present as stated in the Act, and also which election officer would be present and offer him assistance.
She noted that not all the persons listed in that provision have to be present.
To this pronouncement, Attorney Anil Nandlall, one of Hollader’s attorneys, tried desperately after the judge’s ruling to persuade her to make an order