March 27 2020
Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) retired Justice Claudette Singh has “withdrawn” from the High Court an incorrect affidavit filed on her behalf in response to the case brought by APNU+AFC candidate Ulita Moore challenging a recount of votes.
In a statement released yesterday GECOM PRO Yolanda Ward indicated that in an effort to meet strict timelines the incorrect affidavit was filed.
“The affidavit has since been withdrawn and the notice of withdrawal is being served on the Parties,” she added.
This matter is before Justice Franklyn Holder who is expected to make a ruling today on jurisdiction.
Speaking with Stabroek News, Singh noted that the affidavit had to be withdrawn since it conflicts with a “commitment” she made to the Court on March 13.
“My commitment stands,” she stressed.
Singh had already filed with the court an affidavit which reminded that on Friday March 13, 2020 she appeared before Chief Justice Roxane George in a contempt motion touching and concerning the tabulation by the Region 4 Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo.
During that appearance Singh said that should there be discrepancies in the Statements of Poll as announced by the RO and those held by political parties which could not be addressed at the end of the process she “will endeavor to facilitate a recount at the level of the Commission.” This affidavit was dated March 20.
The second, inaccurate affidavit was filed on March 24 on behalf of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and it declares among other things that the Region 4 tabulation was conducting in compliance with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act.
It also accepts that the Commission has no authority to accede to any request for a recount based upon an agreement between the President and Opposition Leader.
The agreement mentioned was brokered by President David Granger and provided for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to supervise a recount of all ballots cast in the March 2 General and Regional Elections.
Moore’s applications which contends that a recount can only occur in keeping with the provisions of Section 84 (2) of the representation of the people’s act halted this process.
The section explains that a counting agent must apply to the RO before noon of the day following an elections declaration.
It is not clear what the newly submitted affidavit on behalf of the commission admits but Singh maintained that much of the content from the incorrect submission had been removed.
The tendering of an incorrect affidavit will add to ongoing concerns about machinations at GECOM in favour of APNU+AFC.
GECOM’s representation on this matter has been a source of contention with one commissioner arguing that no legal representative had been appointed or instructed by the full commission.
In a Facebook post on the matter prior to the announcement of the withdrawal of the affidavit, GECOM Commissioner Sase Gunraj explained that since March 17 “no discussions were had and certainly, no decisions were taken as a body in relation to the myriad of issues related to the elections, including the ongoing litigation.”
He called out Singh for appearing to submit to the Court an affidavit which Commissioners had criticized and shared a letter written to the Chair on the matter.
“You have given an undertaking to facilitate a recount at the Commission level, in the event that there were unresolved discrepancies during the tabulation process. You have been provided with incontrovertible evidence of such unresolved discrepancies. The affidavit that you are now being requested to execute undermines the undertaking referred to above,” Gunraj argued in response to an email containing the then draft affidavit.
He further claimed that the averments contained in the affidavit suborns perjury on your part, as they collide with your position as averred in your Affidavit of Defence.
Additionally he reminded that the entire Commission decided, on the March 15, to facilitate a recount of all ballots cast in the election and in fact, agreed on modalities for the execution thereof.
“In the circumstances, I am strenuously advocating that you refrain from executing the Affidavit. In the unlikely event that you proceed to do so, I will be forced to publicly denounce same, as it will be without the authority of the Commission,” he concluded.