Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty today ruled that the Elections Fraud Case would have to be tried “de novo” meaning  it will have to start “afresh”.

The ruling has nullified the previous trial, which was initiated by City Magistrate Leron Daly, but ended abruptly after she fell sick. 

The Acting Chief Magistrate said now that the issue of “de novo” is out of the way, the Court must now decide whether there should be a summary trial or an indictable one. 

With the Prosecution long advancing its arguments for there to be a summary trial, the Acting Chief Magistrate called on the Defense, led by Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, to make its submission. 

Hughes said he could not preempt the decision of the Court, but the Defense is in favor of an indictable trial. 

“Clearly the Prosecution anticipated your ruling, we couldn’t. That’s why we didn’t make submission in relation to the issue on whether or not the matter should be an indictable one,” Hughes told the Court. 

Interjecting, the acting Chief Magistrate said the Prosecution had “jump the gun.’

But Special Prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani was quick to set the record straight. 

Ramdhani said the Prosecution was “not at all jumping any gun.” He explained that from the inception, the Court clearly identified three issues to be addressed, whether the case should be heard de novo, whether it should be heard summarily or indictably and whether the Magistrate could revisit the charges. 

He said “the  defense chose to only address the de novo issue.”

“Any lawyer sitting in a matter like this would have realized that you had to make several decisions. One would have been whether the matter should be heard de novo. Any lawyer would have anticipated, apart from you saying put in submissions on point number two and point number three, any lawyer should have anticipated that you could go one of two ways, it is de novo or not, and if it is de novo, the next question that arises is whether the matter should be heard summarily or indictable,” the Special Prosecutor said. 

He, however, did not object to the Defense being afforded additional time to address the outstanding issues, in particular whether there should be a summary trial or indictable one. 

The trial into the alleged attempt to commit fraud during the 2020 Elections commenced on July 29, 2024. However, it was adjourned after just three days. At the time, only two witnesses had testified before the Court – Minister of Local Government Sonia Parag and Head of the Diaspora Unit at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rosalind Rasul. 

It was during the adjournment that the Magistrate Daly fell ill. 

The defendants in the matter are former Chief Election Officer, Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy Chief Election Officer, Roxanne Myers; and former Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, along with Opposition 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 alleged attempt to declare fraudulent results during the 2020 Elections. They have all declared their innocence.

Related posts:

Acting Chief Magistrate to rule on December 30 on whether to restart Election Fraud trial from the beginning Prosecution and Defence in Election Fraud case to begin oral arguments on December 9 Election Fraud Trial further delayed until September; Magistrate on 30-days sick leave Election Fraud Trial: Prosecution and Defence clash over objections and other issues