Defence Attorney Eusi Anderson today raised concerns over what he described as “significant irregularities” in several Statements of Poll (SOPs) from Region One polling stations where the PPP/C secured large percentages of votes. His concerns were raised as the 2020 Election Fraud Trial continued before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
Anderson made the observations after several bundles of SOPs for Region One were tendered and marked as exhibits during the testimony of Inspector Nigel Stephen, who is attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
Stephen told the court that on May 28, 2021, he received two metal safes along with keys to secure SOPs from the March 2020 Regional and General Elections. He said that on May 29, 2021, he met with Registrar of the Supreme Court, Sueanna Lovell, during a verification exercise where the SOPs and Statements of Recount (SORs) were certified.
The witness explained that after taking the documents into his possession, they were lodged in the safes, for which only he had the keys.
During the proceedings, Anderson told the court that he observed that SOPs from polling stations where the APNU+AFC either won convincingly or shared votes closely with the PPP/C appeared to contain the proper markings, declarations and signatures.
“Madam, I have found that in the areas where the APNU/AFC won in Region One convincingly from the SOPs, or where they were in close proximity sharing 30 to 40 percent of the votes each, the SOPs seem to have all the important markers on them, including the certification that it is correct and the correct signatures of the polling agents and counting agents,” Anderson stated.
However, he argued that in polling stations where the PPP/C received more than 70 percent of the votes, there appeared to be “significant irregularities” in the SOPs brought before the court.
Anderson first drew the court’s attention to the Arrow Community Centre polling station, where he said the votes were relatively evenly split and the SOP contained the correct declaration, signatures and no apparent errors.
He then compared that SOP to one from the Michelle Seecharran Residence polling station numbered 111123A (II), where the PPP/C reportedly secured 76 percent of the votes.
According to Anderson, the presiding officer, Michelle Seecharran, made two errors on the declaration and initialled the changes herself without counter-signatures from polling or counting agents.
“It is prepared by the presiding officer in the presence of the polling agents and counting agents and any errors thereon that she unilaterally changes should be counter-signed by the witnesses who saw the preparation,” Anderson argued.
He further claimed that the polling station number on the declaration differed slightly from the number on the Statement of Poll.
Anderson told the court that the issues raised would form the basis of an application to have that particular SOP excluded.
The defence attorney also highlighted another SOP from Aruta Primary School, ballot box number 1025, where he said the PPP/C received 92 percent of the votes cast.
He pointed to a signature by a woman identified as Gina Thomas, who signed as a counting agent under “APO-GECOM.”
“Counting agents and polling agents are always appointed by a political party. Gina Thomas signed as a counting agent. I don’t know how you could be a counting agent appointed by a political party and sign in your capacity as APO-GECOM,” Anderson stated while requesting that the SOP be struck from the record.
Another issue raised by the defence related to the SOP for Sebai Primary School, ballot box number 1023, where Anderson said the PPP/C secured 78 percent of the votes.
He claimed that while six signatures appeared as witnesses to the declaration, only two persons identified political party affiliations while the remaining four signatures contained insufficient identifying information.
“The challenge is that there are four signatures that do not provide sufficient data in the declaration for us to rely upon the declaration as a true and correct record of what transpired at that polling place,” Anderson told the court.
The final SOP challenged by the defence was from ballot box number 1017 at Oronoque Community Centre, where the PPP/C allegedly secured 71 percent of the votes.
Anderson argued that the declaration section was incomplete and failed to properly correspond with the information contained on the Statement of Poll.
“The declaration that is on one half of the document has to match the information that is on the other half of the document otherwise the two are not one and the same,” he said.
In response, Prosecutor Madana Rampersaud argued that Anderson’s submissions may be more relevant during final arguments and judgement rather than at the current stage of the proceedings.
Rampersaud told the court that the copies before the court were obtained from original documents pursuant to a court order and were subsequently collected by the police.
He added that he had no objection to comparisons being made between the documents if necessary.
Acting Chief Magistrate McGusty, in response, stated that at this stage of the proceedings she neither had the power nor believed it prudent to exclude the documents from the record.
The magistrate said it was better for the documents to remain as part of the court proceedings.
The matter was adjourned to Friday for continuation.
