Lewis’ response to the COI Report is laced with useless complaints

I write in response to Lincoln Lewis’ that the COI “failed to address causes of the electoral problems published in the media May 01, 2023. The fact is the COI did not only establish why the 2020 elections were brazenly disrupted, but it also named the people who were involved. Mr. Lewis clearly has some comprehension issues if he is unable to see what is very clearly stated in the COI’s Revised Report. For Lewis’ benefit the first substantive paragraph of the report states the follows – “In summary, our inquiry reveals that there were, in fact, shockingly brazen attempts by Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers and Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo to derail and corrupt the statutorily prescribed procedure for the counting, ascertaining and tabulation of votes of the March 2nd election, as well as the true declaration of the results of that election, and they did so – to put it in unvarnished language of the ordinary man – for the purpose of stealing the election.”

There is no ambiguity in what happened and who is responsible. The operatives and others linked to the APNU and AFC coalition, both inside GECOM and beyond, made unrelenting efforts to commit election fraud in favour of the same APNU-AFC coalition. Lewis’ response to the COI Report is laced with elementary errors, distortions, inaccuracies, innuendos, half-truths, and most of all, useless complaints that have no basis in law or simple fact. A few of these should be highlighted. The first of Lewis’ eight points is that “…the report was kind to the Chairperson [Claudette Singh] in spite of the blunders…” Could it be that the COI found no incriminating evidence of collusion among Justice Singh and those fingered, namely Lowenfield, Myers, and Mingo? You bet! Another innocuous little issue aired is that “the people who were targeted never gave evidence…”.

Two things here. First, no one was targeted. Rather, the distinguished members of the Commission had clear Terms of Reference. Lewis needs to show us where in the TOR anyone is targeted. The target was to find out what really happened. Secondly, the big three named as the main perpetrators of election misconduct were given the option to testify. They refused by their own choice. Lincoln Lewis fails to understand that the COI was not doing a general survey of the population at large. Hence his charge that the COI gives the impression that the report emerged out of broad participation, is also meaningless. The Guyanese population had already done their job. They voted. What the COI set out to do was to find out if anyone tried to steal their votes by stealing the election. It found just that and named the central players in the rigging attempt.

Mr. Lewis is more brazen than some named individuals when he states that biometrics ID were not used. Does he not recall that it is not in the constitution as per the post-1997 election tricks with biometrics? For Mr. Lewis’ part, I have to say that his missive is missing some key components from the election story. Lewis should explain how APNU-AFC linked GECOM staff got so tired, so often, and with so little work. How did they get so hungry so often? Who procured the cardboard on which the bedsheet was hung? Where was the electoral (Vaseline) petroleum jelly procured? Why did Mr. Ramjattan withdraw his unambiguous statement to AFC staff that the PPP/C had won the election? Editor, Lincoln Lewis needs to adopt a more responsible position by carefully reading the COI’s Revised Final Report. Had he done that, he would have found that the “causes of electoral problems” were indeed clearly established.