By Svetlana Marshall

The electoral fraud trial entered its second day today with State Prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani clashing with Defense Attorney, Eusi Anderson, over the repeated objections by the Defense, and a move by the Court to bar the Prosecution’s witness from mentioning one agent of the APNU+AFC, who is not a party to the Court matter.

The issues arose as Minister of Local Government, Sonia Parag, took the stand for a second day, detailing a series of events that unfolded between polling day and the final day of declaration of the election results.

Testifying before City Magistrate Leron Daly, Minister Parag told the Court that on March 5, 2020, the then Region Four Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo indicated to party agents and observers, present in the Guyana Elections Commission Command Centre that he was about to declare the results of the votes cast in District Four for the various political parties.

Parag said at the time, the tabulation of the Statements of Poll (SOPs) for the district was far from completed.

According to her, everyone in the room objected, except for Member of Parliament Volda Lawrence and James Bond – both of whom were agents of the APNU+AFC.

According to her, the two were silent on the issue. 

But Magistrate Daly questioned the relevance, explaining that while Ms. Lawrence is among the defendants, Mr. Bond is not named in the proceedings.

Defence Attorney Eusi Anderson also registered his objections to the mentioning of Bond’s name, and the Court eventually barred the witness from mentioning or implicating Mr. Bond as among those who allegedly conspired to commit fraud. 

But the decision did not sit well with the State Prosecutor, who made his concerns known in and outside the courtroom. 

“Today, the witness attempted to call a name of a person and to say that, that person was sitting next to the defendants, and in attempting to name the witness, the court ruled that you could not named the witness and the witness’ name was contained in the statement given to the police. I do not know if you are startled but I am completely startled. This happens every day in our courts of law. Eye witnesses to crime turn up in court every day and they say who was running from the scene, who was standing at the scene, who was saying what, this happens every day, and we are now being told, the witness standing in the box cannot say who she saw present, who was saying what, who was siting where,” the State Prosecutor said. 

Ramdhani also took umbrage to the series of objections and requests for clarification by the Defense during Parag’s testimony.

It was repeatedly pointed out by the Defense, and confirmed by the City Magistrate that portions of the evidence provided by Ms. Parag were not included in her witness statement.

But Ramdhani told the Court that Parag was merely “fleshing out” what was detailed in her witness statement, and there was no need for the Defense to verify whether or not it was included in her witness statement. 

He accused the Defense of deliberately trying to drag out the case. 

“We find what is happening, this continuous standing up unnecessarily is continuing to prolong this matter. We could have completed this witness already. We had four witnesses yesterday lined up, we had four separate witnesses today lined up and we are still just in the evidence in chief of one witness. Now, persons are sitting in court and they see what is going on,” he told reporters. 

The Prosecutor intends to ask the Court to reconsider some of its rulings.

“I will continue to press the court that this evidence is relevant, this evidence should be admitted and we should be allowed to present this case. This is where we are…And I am very concerned that if a witness is not allowed to say who she saw present, when she has put that name in the statement given to the police, when this witness is not permitted to say, when she said witnesses are objecting and to say what words are used in an objection. I am concern,” the State Prosecutor told reporters. 

But Defence Attorney, Eusi Anderson told reporters that it is an issue of fairness, and Parag should not be allowed to stray far beyond the statement made in her disclosure to the defense.  

“What we have found is a lot of what is contained in the disclosed statements to us is not what the witness is referring to in her evidence in the witness box, and that continues to be an issue, it continues to be an issue of fairness, it continues to be an issue of ambush and we are deeply continue about how it would affect the integrity of the proceedings going forward. That being said, we are confident that the court continues to do its very best to mitigate those risks and balance the situation as much as possible,” Anderson explained. 

Alluding to the issue involving Bond, Anderson reminded that Bond is neither a defendant or witness, and his name should not be brought into disrepute.  

“Mr Bond’s name was mentioned and we were concerned that there is the ad hoc references to people’s names who are not named in these proceedings and who have no recourse to any kind of redress should their names appear in an adverse manner in these proceedings. And so, for that reason, we formed a view and we were objecting vociferously about it, that the reference to Mr Bond’s name should not form part of the record,” he explained. 

Anderson said he is satisfied that the Court continues to hold a very firm and stable hand on the proceedings and the Defense is utmost confidence in the Court’s ability to discharge its duty. 

Meanwhile, Parag in her testimony, indicated that there were two separate declarations made by the Returning Officer on March 5 and March 13, 2020, which resulted in fierce objections by party agents and observers, except for those in the APNU+AFC camp, on the grounds that the results were incorrect, and largely favored the APNU+AFC. 

The defendants in the matter are Keith Lowenfield, Roxanne Myers and Clairmont Mingo, along with Member of Parliament, Volda Lawrence; People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) Member Carol Smith-Joseph; and Election Officers Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Bobb-Cummings and Michelle Miller. They are facing 19 conspiracy charges relating to an attempt to declare fraudulent results during the course of the 2020 Elections. 

However, while under cross-examination by Defence Attorney Eusi Anderson, Minister Parag told the Court at no time did she see the nine defendants together. 

Related posts:

Electoral Fraud case opens with Local Government Minister as first witness; Defence objects to some of her testimony Election Fraud trial set to begin on July 29 Election fraud case adjourned to May 29 as High Court continues to hear Constitutional issues Over 100 witnesses to testify against Mingo in election fraud case -Prosecutor