SOPs must be displayed for all participants in process to see -Chief Justice says
Acting Chief Justice Roxane GeorgeWiltshire yesterday emphasised that in the tabulation of votes for Region Four, the Statements of Poll (SOPs) must be displayed for all observing the process to see.
She was at the time addressing the court during a hearing at which attorney Anil Nandlall, on behalf of the opposition PPP/C, was seeking leave to file affidavits for a contempt of court action against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Region Four Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo.
In a bid to provide clarity to her previous ruling regarding the transparent manner in which the tabulation of votes for Region Four ought to be conducted, Justice George-Wiltshire yesterday morning painstakingly emphasised that the SOPs must be displayed for all observing the process to see. The visibly-frustrated Chief Justice was forced to reduce her explanation to attorneys on both sides, to elementary-level reasoning. She said that what she meant was that duly authorised persons looking on at the process had to see each statement, whether it was held up in the air or projected on a screen.
Holding up her electronic tablet to illustrate what she meant, the judge then very slowly pointed out that whatever number of votes were ascribed to each SOP, it must not only be called out, but shown and recorded before moving on to the next.
“Everyone has to actually see that SOP document,” the judge said, in obvious frustration.
On Wednesday, the Chief Justice delivered a judgment in which she ruled that the purported declaration of results for Electoral District Four by Mingo, following the March 2nd general and regional elections, was unlawful as it did not conform to requirements in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
Vitiating those results, Justice GeorgeWiltshire then ordered the resumption of the process no later than 11 on Thursday morning.
However, less than two hours after the process restarted, it was once again suspended so that GECOM Chair Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh could read the Chief Justice’s written ruling.
The issue at that point, which caused the suspension, was that Mingo was in breach of the Chief Justice’s order because he was utilising data from a “spreadsheet” and not producing any corresponding SOPs for observers to see.
In a letter to Mingo on Thursday afternoon, in which he gave notice of intended contempt proceedings, Nandlall had said that in violation of the Chief Justice’s ruling, Mingo commenced the tabulation exercise in contravention of Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
According to Nandlall, contrary to what the Act provides, Mingo “refused to ascertain and add up the votes recorded in favour of the list of candidate in accordance with the SOPs.”
He said that instead the RO “chose to use a pre-prepared spreadsheet as the basis for the ascertaining and adding up of the said votes.”
The lawyer said, too, that he had been instructed that none of the duly appointed candidates for District Four were permitted to be present at the exercise.
‘Posturing’
Acknowledging the tension and anxiety as the country awaits the final outcome of the elections, Justice George-Wiltshire yesterday pointedly asked Nandlall and Senior Counsel Neil Boston, who is representing Mingo, to state exactly what the issue was.
The Chief Justice reprimanded both attorneys, saying that valuable judicial time had been invested in hearing the matter while “a lot of posturing” has been happening on all sides. “Why can’t we just get on with it?” she asked, rhetorically.
“What don’t you understand from my ruling?” the judge enquired.
Beginning with Nandlall, she asked, “What do you understand my judgement to be saying? What is unclear about the decision? Or let me ask it another way. What do you interpret the judgement to be saying?”
Slowly rising to his feet, Nandlall responded that he understood her ruling to be saying that the addition of the voter count for Region Four needed to be tabulated using the SOPs from each of the district’s 879 polling stations for persons present at the exercise to see.
“This is what I understand Your Honour’s order to be saying, and that is all I’m asking for. Compliance with Your Honour’s order,” Nandlall said.
Boston then said that this was being done.
His response was, however, met with instant rejection from Nandlall and the battery of other attorneys on his team, who said that what was happening at the office of the RO was that numbers were being called out from a spreadsheet.
According to Boston, the RO was using the SOPs, but the issues arose whenever persons present challenged what was being announced by Mingo from the SOP he [Mingo] had in his possession.
Boston said that these objections kept interrupting his client from executing his statutory duty of declaring the results from each SOP. He told the court that his client would then try to explain that that was not the forum to resolve those issues as there is a time and place for such.
According to Boston, once opposition representatives and others did not get those issues resolved in their favour, it became an issue and the process would repeatedly be stalled or suspended.
“If there is a request for a recount,” those issues will be addressed, the senior counsel added.
Giving credence to the fact that the objections to which Boston referred are indeed not to be dealt with at that point, the judge said that the process must continue. She, however, cautioned that those objections must be noted so that they can be dealt with at the appropriate time and forum.
She also reemphasised that it is immaterial if, at the point the RO is executing his statutory duty, someone said that an SOP was at variance with the RO’s. That, too, she said would be dealt with at the appropriate time and forum, but note must be taken of the complaint.
Justice George-Wiltshire declared that if it came down to them using their fingers, toes, a ruler and sheet of paper to do the tabulating and inputting the data into a computer or on a spreadsheet or some prehistoric method, they were free to so do.
She said that it was immaterial whether the RO choose to use the spreadsheet or not, but emphasised that the SOPs must be used and clearly displayed for everyone present to see. She made it clear that she could not dictate what method the RO should use, as that was his decision to make, but said that at the end of the day, the SOPs had to be displayed for everyone to see.
“Just count the things,” the judge said in apparent frustration.
Section 84 of the Act, which specifies the process for the counting of votes, stipulates that the votes must be added up in accordance with the SOPs.
It prescribes, among other things, that as soon as practicable after the receipt of all the ballot boxes and the envelopes and packets delivered to him in pursuance of Section 83 (10), the RO shall, in the presence of those legally entitled to be in attendance, ascertain the total votes cast in favour of each list in the district by adding up the votes recorded in favour of the list in accordance with the SOPs and thereupon publicly declare the votes for each list of candidate.
After initial submissions, Justice George-Wiltshire stood the matter down to give the attorneys and Justice Singh and Mingo, who were also present at court, a chance to meet and discuss the way forward with the hope that they could have the issues resolved amicably.
About half an hour later, however, Nandlall said that their discussion saw no fruitful end.
‘Say a prayer’
After the Chief Justice clarified how the SOPs ought to be used, the parties said that they fully understood what was required and that the tabulation process would continue at the RO’s office.
Having set Monday morning for report, and with the attorneys saying that they completely understand what needs to be done, Justice George-Wiltshire, in a light moment, clasped her hands and said, “I will say a prayer,” causing many in the courtroom to chuckle.
Nandlall, however, said if there is further violation from the RO, he will file an affidavit in support of a formal contempt challenge.
The Chief Justice ruled on Wednesday on an injunction sought and granted to PPP/C supporter Reeaz Hollader, restraining Mingo from making any declaration of the votes for District Four, and also prohibiting Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, from making any declaration of the final results of the elections until the votes were fully verified.
Hollader was represented by a battery of attorneys, which included Nandlall.
While the tabulation process 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 APNU+AFC counting agent. All other counting agents refused to sign the document.
Mingo had 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.
Up to the point when the ruckus started, only 421 of the 879 SOPs for Region Four had been verified and declared.
Results for all of the other nine Electoral Districts had already been verified and declared.
Legitimate
Meanwhile, owing to the global outbreak of coronavirus and with Guyana on Wednesday recording its first death from the illness, the Supreme Court disseminated notices on Thursday afternoon informing that work would end at 1pm yesterday to facilitate sanitation and fumigation.
At yesterday’s hearing of the contempt proceedings, however, a visibly angry Justice George-Wiltshire issued a strong rebuke to reporters, whom she blamed for what she described as peddling “mischievous nonsense.”
The judge alluded to a report which claimed that the “government had shut down the court.”
The Chief Justice said that the necessary closure is solely to ensure the protection of staff given the outbreak of the coronavirus and the need to take precautionary measures.
With representatives from each media house present, however, confirming after the hearing that they knew of no such report, President of the Guyana Press Association (GPA) Nazima Raghubir made efforts to ascertain the source of the publication.
Her search subsequently revealed that the missive was published on a website which carries the name “Action News Guyana.”
Raghubir has made it clear that Action News Guyana is not a legitimate news agency, nor has it, or anyone therefrom, been accredited by the GPA.
The GPA president said that the website is operated by PPP/C candidate Romel Roopnarine.