Chartered Accountant testifies to variance in votes recorded for APNU+AFC in 2020 Elections

Chartered Accountant, Terrence Jaskaran, who was considered by the Court today to be an expert in forensic auditing notwithstanding the Defense’s objection, testified that A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) had a variance of more than 20,000 votes when the certified copies of the Region 4 Statements of Poll (SOPs) were compared to the March 5 Declaration made during the course of the 2020 General Elections.

Jaskaran was the sole witness to take the stand today as the 2020 Elections Case continued in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Principal Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty.

Led by Special Prosecutor, Darshan Ramdhani, Jaskaran testified that on August 21, 2020, he was hired by the Ministry of Home Affairs as a Forensic Audit Consultant under the Criminal Investigations Department (CID).

He told the Court that in May, 2021, he received a request from a Police officer for a “tabulation and “verification analysis” to be conducted on the certified copies of the SOPs from the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. Jaskaran, the Court was told, was also expected to compare the declarations made using “Form 24” and generate a report.

The certified copies of the SOPs were uplifted on May 29, 2021 from the High Court, and on June 3, 2021, Jaskaran reportedly began the tabulation exercise. That exercise, according to him, was completed on July 28, 2021 and a report was generated.

Invited by the Prosecutor to read the findings of his report in Court, Jaskaran before diving into the figures explained that unlike the other regions, there were two declarations (Form 24) for District 4.

He said when the certified SOPs were compared with the declarations made on March 5, 2020 in the General Elections for Region 4, APNU+AFC had a variance of more than 20,000 votes in the case of the March 5 declaration, and a further variance of 19,000 votes when the SOPs were compared with the March 13 declaration.

“ANUG had a total of 1,414 votes as compared to 1,389 votes as per the declaration on Form 24 dated March 5^th the declaration for March 5^th having a variance of 25 less. For the declaration on March 13^th, the ANUG had a total of 1,387 votes having a variance of 27 less. APNU+AFC had a total number of votes of 116,215 as compared to 136,458 votes as per the declaration on Form 24 dated 5^th March, 2020 – the declaration having a variance of 20,243 votes more. And for the declarations on March 13, 2020, 136 057 votes as per that declaration – the declaration having a variance of 19,842 more votes,” Jaskaran reported.

It was noted that in the case of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), the Region 4 certified copies of the SOPs indicated that the party received 80,288 votes for the General Elections while the declarations made on March 5, 2020 and March 13, 2020 indicated that the party had received 77,329 votes and 77,231 respectively. There was a variance of 2,959 votes less in the first instance, and in the second instance a variance of 3,057 less votes.

In the case of the smaller parties that contested the election in the region, the variances varied from single digits to triple digits, with some parties receiving less and others receiving more.

Jaskaran, however, noted that three of the certified SOPs he received were “blank” and as such he was unable to include those as part of his analysis, while two other SOPs were not presented, and therefore could not have been included in his analysis.

Jaskaran had also provided his findings for Regions One, Two and Three. However, there was little to no variation some cases.

Expert in Forensic Auditing

However, before Jaskaran presented the Court with excerpts from his report, Defence Attorneys Eusi Anderson and Nigel Hughes objected to him being considered by the Court to be an expert in forensic auditing, but Magistrate Mc Gusty overruled their objections.

“I think it would be an enormous stretch to juxtapose the skills and experiences derived in looking at the balance sheets and data sets from a bank and compare them to an electoral process. I am of the humble view that this witness has not testified of one single similar or related experience auditing elections or elections results,” Anderson told the Court.

He submitted that there are plethoras of other people including Chief Election Officers regionally, who are more suited to conduct a forensic audit of the electoral process. Alluding to Order 60, Anderson further argued that Jaskaran has no legal experience to pronounce on what constitutes a valid vote, and other such factors.

Hughes also registered his objection, but Ramdhani told the Court that Jaskaran has more than 11 years of experience and is a competent authority in the area of forensic audit. He said the objections were without merit.

Overturning the objections, Magistrate Mc Gusty said “matter boils down to numbers,” and having been in the accounting field since 2011, Jaskaran should be well qualified to treat with numbers.

The case has been adjourned to Monday, September 21.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Man wanted for 2015 murder of gay sex worker deported to Guyana from the US