Karen Cummings sends false report on CCJ Judgment to OAS

 Jul 23, 2020

Source

In a letter to the Chair of the Organization of American States (OAS) Permanent Council, Luis Cordero, Guyana’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karen Cummings sought to falsely represent the judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on the recount case.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Karen Cummings

In the letter, dated July 19, 2020 – sent ahead of the special meeting of the Council, held on Tuesday, July 20 – Cummings stated that the “The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was then approached and, in its ruling, invalidated the Recount Process, on the grounds that the Recount Order No. 60 of 2020 ought not to contradict the constitution of Guyana.”
The Caribbean Court stated in paragraph 47 of its full judgment in Irfaan Ali vs. Eslyn David et al, “Unless and until an election court decides otherwise, the votes already counted by the recount process as valid votes are incapable of being declared invalid by any person or authority other than the High Court through an election petition.”
The Court not only held that the recount process could not be invalidated unless in an election petition after a final declaration is made; it held also that only the High Court has the jurisdiction to take up that mantle.
In presenting this false report to Ambassador Cordero, Cummings was arguing for the position of the coalition, which favoured not the transparent recount that showed it lost the elections, but the Returning Officers’ district declarations, which most notably included the fraudulent March 13 Region Four declaration that would give the coalition a false national lead.

Former Attorney General and PPP/C Executive, Anil Nandlall

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams

This became evident in the continuation of the Minister’s letter, where she stated, “It [the CCJ] ruled, also, that the Chairman of the Election Commission must therefore act in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana and declare the elections results based on the Report presented by the Chief Election Officer. The Report presented by the Chief Election Officer on 11th July 2020 indicated that APNU+AFC received 236,777 votes and the PPPC, received 229,330 votes.”
Those results were presented in a report by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, largely based on the ten declarations made by the Returning Officers. In presenting this report to the Commission, Lowenfield disregarded multiple instructions handed to him in letters by the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), retired Justice Claudette Singh. Rather than giving Lowenfield the latitude to present any report he wished to, Guyana’s apex Court condemned his move to act unilaterally.
That Lowenfield is subject to the direction and control of the Commission was iterated by Justice Singh’s lawyer, Kim Kyte-Thomas in her argument to the High Court in the case of Misenga Jones vs. GECOM et al. Kyte-Thomas argued that “Lowenfield cannot go off on a frolic of his own and put himself above GECOM, the laws of Guyana and even the Constitution.”
This argument was upheld by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire in her Monday ruling, in which she stated, “It is the Chairperson and GECOM that have the constitutional mandate” and that “the CEO cannot act on his own.”
Lowenfield’s argument in that case, had also sought to discredit the recount, and that was summarily dismissed by the Chief Justice as “hopelessly flawed”. Notably, the Chief Justice’s judgment was premised on respect for the rulings of the CCJ and the Court of Appeal on cases pertaining to the recount, as it depended on the precedents set and decisions made by those Courts.

False reinforces false
The content of the letter from the Foreign Minister to the Council Chair is consistent with another false statement made by the Attorney General, Basil Williams on Tuesday, the day of the special meeting, when he also falsely claimed that the CCJ nullified the recount.
Following the address by the two Ministers, PPP/C executive Anil Nandlall condemned Williams’ false report.
“He [Williams] continues to spin a narrative that defies reality,” Nandlall said. “The narrative that he’s reciting is a narrative that is inconsistent with everything that every other person and every other organization have observed and spoke about and wrote about in relation to the Guyana elections. He just misrepresented completely, the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice, its purport and effect.”
Nandlall further explained that the false narrative peddled by the coalition is what “the people of Guyana and the entire region have had to be confronted with and deal with on a daily basis – misrepresentations, lies and fabrications.”
He said that they so do, because “their repeated attempts to rig the elections are being uncovered and discovered and made public…”
The special meeting of the Permanent Council was adjourned and is set to continue at an undetermined date.
Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders had told Kaieteur News that the OAS, a union of 35 states, could authorise all of its member states to sanction Guyana as they see fit, if what is currently happening in the country is determined to have constituted a violation of the democratic principles of the region. Such action would have repercussions on CARICOM as well, since all CARICOM states are member states of the OAS, and its resolutions would be binding on them.

The PNC aren't even concerned with laws or facts anymore. They are solely focused on their conspiracy theories which no one else is buying. And when that appear to them to not be getting any traction Williams resorts to veiled threats of violence.

@Former Member posted:

The PNC aren't even concerned with laws or facts anymore. They are solely focused on their conspiracy theories which no one else is buying. And when that appear to them to not be getting any traction Williams resorts to veiled threats of violence.

Basil Williams is not the only one threatening violence. There is implicit violence in yesterday's statement by APNU+AFC that the cabal WILL NOT ACCEPT a GECOM declaration based on the recount numbers.

As Head of APNU+AFC, David Granger must have knowledge of that statement and one can reasonably conclude that he himself will not accept such a declaration although he previously said he would accept any GECOM declaration. Yesterday's statement is coercive.

@Former Member posted:

Basil Williams is not the only one threatening violence. There is implicit violence in yesterday's statement by APNU+AFC that the cabal WILL NOT ACCEPT a GECOM declaration based on the recount numbers.

As Head of APNU+AFC, David Granger must have knowledge of that statement and one can reasonably conclude that he himself will not accept such a declaration although he previously said he would accept any GECOM declaration. Yesterday's statement is coercive.

If Granger is able to quickly respond/react to what Pompeo says but not to what is said closer to him by his party members then he must be focused more on Pompeo or he is directing his party's words/actions. I believe it is both. No one should fool themselves into believing that Granger respects the law or the constitution. He has been guilty of violating both. Here is an excellent article on how gullible followers get used and discarded by their leaders. Those who the PNC will eventually use in their destabilizing campaign usually end up like this guy from the same article cited. "The PNC would usually send thugs to assault and terrorize opposition activists. One of those thugs was a man called Blue. He ended up being a minibus driver. He used to openly boast about breaking-up WPA meetings and physically assaulting activists on behalf of the PNC.
For all the dirty work he did for the PNC, he ended-up a pauper. He was forced to beg for money on Regent Street. The middle class leadership of the PNC had no time for him after he became too old to beat-up people.
A few years ago, he was homeless and found dead on a parapet outside of the Georgetown Hospital. That is how the middle class political leadership in Guyana treat their working class activists. They use them and then dump them."

The Caribbean Court stated in paragraph 47 of its full judgment in Irfaan Ali vs. Eslyn David et al, “Unless and until an election court decides otherwise, the votes already counted by the recount process as valid votes are incapable of being declared invalid by any person or authority other than the High Court through an election petition.”

[47] By the unnecessary insertion of the word “valid”, the Court of Appeal impliedly
invited the CEO to engage, unilaterally, in a further and unlawful validation
exercise unknown to and in clear tension with the existing, constitutionally
anchored electoral laws. That further exercise, which the CEO was quick to
embrace in breach of the Court of Appeal Stay of proceedings, also had the effect
of facilitating a serious trespass on the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court
established by Article 163. The idea that the CEO or GECOM could, in an
unaccountable, non-transparent and seemingly arbitrary manner, without the due
processes and the legal standards established in Article 163 and in the Validation
Act, disenfranchise scores of thousands of electors is entirely inconsistent with the
constitutional framework. Whatever allegations of irregularity attended those votes
(and we neither agree nor disagree as to the existence of such irregularities) must
be adjudged by the High Court under Article 163 50 as was correctly stated by the
Chairperson of GECOM.

In the letter, dated July 19, 2020 – sent ahead of the special meeting of the Council, held on Tuesday, July 20 – Cummings stated that the “The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was then approached and, in its ruling, invalidated the Recount Process, on the grounds that the Recount Order No. 60 of 2020 ought not to contradict the constitution of Guyana.”

[52] The Court also notes that an Order issued by GECOM in any particular context can never determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It is a matter of
elementary constitutional law that if ordinary legislation is in tension with the
Constitution, then the courts must give precedence to the words of the Constitution
and not the other way around. With respect, the notion that Order 60 could either impact interpretation of the Constitution or create a new election regime at variance with the plain words of the Constitution is constitutionally unacceptable.


https://ccj.org/wp-content/upl...07/2020-CCJ-9-AJ.pdf

Someone misinterprets the CCJ ruling.

When are they going to stop lying?  The President and his Cabinet are lying through their teeth to hold on to power.  These men and women have no shame. The whole world is looking at them.  How can they live with themselves? How can Moses and Khemraj tolerate these SOBs?

... and which court gave credence to your warped logic?

@Abu Jihad posted:

... and which court gave credence to your warped logic?

All the courts. All the observers and organizations in the world. 

I am asking legit questions. At least you can answer them and proved to me that you are less stupid than Totaram.

@Ramakant-P posted:

All the courts. All the observers and organizations in the world. 

I am asking legit questions. At least you can answer them and proved to me that you are less stupid than Totaram.

I was not replying to you, i started my reply before yours and didn’t want to quote all of his nonsensical ramblings😂

@Abu Jihad posted:

I was not replying to you, i started my reply before yours and didn’t want to quote all of his nonsensical ramblings😂

Sorry!  My baaad.

@Django posted:

The Caribbean Court stated in paragraph 47 of its full judgment in Irfaan Ali vs. Eslyn David et al, “Unless and until an election court decides otherwise, the votes already counted by the recount process as valid votes are incapable of being declared invalid by any person or authority other than the High Court through an election petition.”

[47] By the unnecessary insertion of the word “valid”, the Court of Appeal impliedly
invited the CEO to engage, unilaterally, in a further and unlawful validation
exercise unknown to and in clear tension with the existing, constitutionally
anchored electoral laws. That further exercise, which the CEO was quick to
embrace in breach of the Court of Appeal Stay of proceedings, also had the effect
of facilitating a serious trespass on the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court
established by Article 163. The idea that the CEO or GECOM could, in an
unaccountable, non-transparent and seemingly arbitrary manner, without the due
processes and the legal standards established in Article 163 and in the Validation
Act, disenfranchise scores of thousands of electors is entirely inconsistent with the
constitutional framework. Whatever allegations of irregularity attended those votes
(and we neither agree nor disagree as to the existence of such irregularities) must
be adjudged by the High Court under Article 163 50 as was correctly stated by the
Chairperson of GECOM.

In the letter, dated July 19, 2020 – sent ahead of the special meeting of the Council, held on Tuesday, July 20 – Cummings stated that the “The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was then approached and, in its ruling, invalidated the Recount Process, on the grounds that the Recount Order No. 60 of 2020 ought not to contradict the constitution of Guyana.”

[52] The Court also notes that an Order issued by GECOM in any particular context can never determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It is a matter of
elementary constitutional law that if ordinary legislation is in tension with the
Constitution, then the courts must give precedence to the words of the Constitution
and not the other way around. With respect, the notion that Order 60 could either impact interpretation of the Constitution or create a new election regime at variance with the plain words of the Constitution is constitutionally unacceptable.


https://ccj.org/wp-content/upl...07/2020-CCJ-9-AJ.pdf

Someone misinterprets the CCJ ruling.

You have an audacious hypothesis. But it has already been tested. It was found that the "someone" who "misinterprets the CCJ ruling" is currently occupying State House on Main Street, Georgetown. And his acolytes are merely conveying his misinterpretation.

https://ccj.org/wp-content/upl...7/2020-CCJ-10-AJ.pdf

Link to CCJ ruling .

@Abu Jihad, use the @ located over 2 on the keyboard + poster's.

@Former Member posted:

You have an audacious hypothesis. But it has already been tested. It was found that the "someone" who "misinterprets the CCJ ruling" is currently occupying State House on Main Street, Georgetown. And his acolytes are merely conveying his misinterpretation.

You need to read the CCJ ruling ,link provided in post above ,before pointing fingers.

@Django posted:

You need to read the CCJ ruling 

Another conjecture. I read the CCJ ruling already. Before you posted that link. I have access to links too. 🙂

@Mitwah posted:

@Abu Jihad, use the @ located over 2 on the keyboard + poster's.

I no longer have my Bkackberry with Keyboard 😂

iPhone suck when it comes to typing.

@Former Member posted:

Another conjecture. I read the CCJ ruling already. Before you posted that link. I have access to links too. 🙂

Figure that ,  still posted the article with erroneous quotation.

The fact that different groups are using excerpts from the CCJ decision to support their arguments is proof that the ruling is unclear about the practical issues facing GECOM.  If as some are contending the CCJ ruling upheld the quantitative aspects of the recount order while invalidating the qualitative aspects then from a political perspective the entire recount order should be declared null and void as the Coalition commissioners would not have agreed to just a simple recounting of ballots.  

@Ramakant-P posted:

All the courts. All the observers and organizations in the world. 

I am asking legit questions. At least you can answer them and proved to me that you are less stupid than Totaram.

Looku story hay...dem two basidee early manin.  Me tell alyou dis man chupid ..e sleep an wake up wid de same chupidness but then again chupidness na gat cure.

The case went to the CCJ for one primary objective which is to contest the COA inserting the word valid into the constitution. Therefore one has to consider the CCJ ruling within the context of the COA one and Lowenfield's subsequent actions. The CCJ threw out Lowenfield's report because it was based on qualitative processes which are only fit and proper for an elections petition. However, the CCJ maintained that the quantitative processes of the order is valid and must be used for the declaration. Only people confused or playing foolish are the Coalition.

@Former Member posted:

The case went to the CCJ for one primary objective which is to contest the COA inserting the word valid into the constitution. Therefore one has to consider the CCJ ruling within the context of the COA one and Lowenfield's subsequent actions. The CCJ threw out Lowenfield's report because it was based on qualitative processes which are only fit and proper for an elections petition. However, the CCJ maintained that the quantitative processes of the order is valid and must be used for the declaration. Only people confused or playing foolish are the Coalition.

Surely you and the CCJ are not suggesting that the qualitative aspects of the recount order were just for window dressing.  Legally what the CCJ is saying obviously makes sense but politically it is absolutely unacceptable.  You simply cannot strip away a critical aspect of an agreement after the fact and then argue on legal terms.  From a political perspective if the qualitative aspects of the recount order are negated then the entire order is also negated.  

@Totaram posted:

Surely you and the CCJ are not suggesting that the qualitative aspects of the recount order were just for window dressing.  Legally what the CCJ is saying obviously makes sense but politically it is absolutely unacceptable.  You simply cannot strip away a critical aspect of an agreement after the fact and then argue on legal terms.  From a political perspective if the qualitative aspects of the recount order are negated then the entire order is also negated.  

The CCJ was engaged to issue a legal ruling. While there were attempts for them to issue political edicts they gracefully declined. The recount order cannot overtake the constitution and the qualitative aspect of it threated to do so. Regarding a political solution, that can be accomplished through discussions after the election process is over. The Coalition is seeking to muddy things by conflating them but that is a futile endeavor. Secondly the order is a legal document (Gazette). One cannot impute political import to it now. There will be opportunities for political reconciliation but first the PNC has to get its knees off GECOM's neck and allow the elections to breathe.