By Svetlana Marshall

The Electoral Fraud trial opened today with State Prosecutor, Darshan Ramdhani, telling the Court that the Prosecution will prove that former Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO), Roxanne Myers and Region 4 Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo conspired with others, in an attempt to defraud the electorate during the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

The case is being heard by Magistrate Leron Daly. 

During today’s hearing, the Court struck out portions of testimony from Ramdhani’s first witness, Minister of Local Government, Sonia Parag.

The witness was asked to leave the stand on a number of occasions, as the Prosecution and Defence teams clashed over various statements that she offered to the Court.

The Defence attorneys include Eusi Anderson, Ronald Daniels and Darren Wade. 

Parag, who said she was an accredited Candidate for the PPP/C at the 2020 elections and was tasked with observing the electoral process, set out during her testimony to articulate the electoral process following the close of poll. 

But Defence Attorney, Eusi Anderson, questioned whether she was the appropriate witness to provide the Court with such details.

His objections led to Magistrate Daly striking out a portion of Parag’s testimony related to the electoral process. 

Anderson also questioned whether as a Candidate in the elections, Parag was even permitted to be in the Command Centre.

The Prosecutor told the Court that whether or not she was accredited to be in the Centre, she witnessed alleged crimes taking place, and stands as a witness in the case.

Other objections came from Attorneys Ronald Daniels, and Darren Wade, and related in part to the inclusion of fresh information by Parag, which she did not mention in her witness statement.

“In the latter portion of Ms Parag’s testimony, she was giving evidence that was not disclosed to the defence and of course, we have had quite a protracted period of over which disclosure could have been made. So, we took the objection that the evidence which was given, we did not have the benefit of that to obtain instructions from our clients, so that we can treat with that accordingly. Quite unfortunately, our senior on the prosecution side took the view that the witness should be permitted to, what we would deem as, to venture on a frolic of her own, to give testimony about virtually anything that he perhaps deems relevant, which was not disclosed to the defense,” Daniels explained. 

Weighing in, Attorney Wade said it was not for Parag to provide the Court with “hear-say” evidence, while alluding to her attempts to articulate the established electoral process.

Collectively, the Defence Attorneys argued that the Prosecution should have first laid the foundation by establishing key facts, before bringing Parag to the stand. 

“The key objection is that of hear-say, what she has the competence to say, and what she cannot say. So, for example, the document she had in her possession. The creators of those documents are not the ones giving the evidence, and as such Ms Parag lacks the competence because she was not the one that created those documents. It was on that basis that I objected, when she tried to say there was a verification process; she cannot very because she was not the author or the creator of those evidence. And Mr Ramdhani acknowledged that, and said the person is coming after, but as my colleague rightfully said, when you are building a house, the foundation is laid first,” Wade said. 

However, the State Prosecutor questioned the relevance of the objections raised by the Defence. 

“Objection or no objection, the evidence is coming out. There was an objection taken for instance about the identification of these defendants, and the magistrate made it very clear that this case will not turn upon whether these people are the people who were sitting down in that room calling out numbers because that is what the defense tried to do, object on the identification of the defendants charged,” the State Prosecutor said. 

But Attorney Ronald Daniels told reporters, that given the damning allegations leveled against their clients, it is important for the Defence to ensure that the process is fair, and their clients are properly represented. 

“I just want to emphasize on the fact that these are really damning allegations, which are made against these nine (9) accused persons, that have potentially, really reverberating consequences. So, this process, absolutely must be characterized by fairness, and it is really curious that our senior on the prosecution side, seems to be of the view that it was okay not to disclose the bit of evidence that Ms Parag came and give this morning or attempted to give,” Daniels explained. 

Parag, during her testimony, recounted being in a room at the GECOM Command Centre when questions first surfaced about some of the figures that were being presented by some of the GECOM officials that appeared to be different from what the representatives from the parties had recorded from the statements of poll.

In his opening statement to the Court before Minister Parag took the stand, the State Prosecutor told the Court that the nine defendants, who are facing a total of 19 conspiracy charges, attempted to declare fraudulent results during the course of the 2020 Elections in favor of the the APNU+AFC, which was in Government at the time.

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

He said it is the Prosecution’s case that while the electoral process went smoothly on Polling Day, the it went downhill during the tabulation of the votes for District Four, when Mingo and others allegedly discarded the statutory process of using Statements of Poll and substituted that process with a spreadsheet that included inflated numbers in favour of APNU+AFC.

Throughout his opening arguments, the State Prosecutor sought to link the nine defendants to the crime of conspiracy to commit fraud, telling the Court that while some of the defendants did not play an active role from the start, they inserted themselves and actively participated in overt activities intended to defraud the electorate. 

The case is set to continue tomorrow.

Related posts:

AG Nandlall accuses Defence Attorneys of deliberately raising objections in Elections fraud case Electoral fraud case adjourned to December; Defendants provided with evidence to be used Over 100 witnesses to testify against Mingo in election fraud case -Prosecutor Mingo to be released from Police custody; To lodge passport as electoral fraud case continues