– questions credibility of claims, notes lack of evidence since 2020 election

ATTORNEY GENERAL and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, has rejected recent claims by Vincent Alexander, an executive of the People’s National Congress (PNC), suggesting that ballots were issued in the names of people who were not present on Election Day during the March 2020 elections.

Speaking during his weekly television programme, Issues in the News, on Tuesday, Nandlall said that despite four years having passed since the elections, Alexander, the NCP representative on the Guyana Electoral Commission (GECOM), has yet to provide any evidence to substantiate claims.
Nandlall has dismissed the allegations, which involve large-scale fraudulent voting, as “bizarre,” especially given the rigorous controls and oversight that were put in place on Election Day.
He explained that the Guyana Electoral Commission (GECOM) has mechanisms in place at polling stations that, according to him, make it almost impossible for fraudulent votes to be cast.

Nandlall explained that the process requires voters to present an identity card or passport with a photograph, which is compared with a folio that contains the image and data of the voter.
This verification is carried out in the presence of the president, vice president and election agents of all political parties, Nandlall said.
“Are you telling me that impostor can show up and fool all these people sitting there?” he asked, challenging Alejandro’s claims.

In this context, Nandlall further questioned the validity of Alexander’s repeated accusations, highlighting the absence of evidence.
“Alexander continues to repeat this strange accusation over and over again in the newspapers without presenting any evidence to support what he says. Alexander does not present one iota of evidence,” Nandlall said.
Nandlall went on to remind the public of the PNC’s acceptance of the voter list used in previous elections, noting that the list was considered legitimate in both the 2011 and 2015 elections, both led by the Alliance for National Unity + Alliance led by the PNC. For Change (APNU+AFC) successfully challenged.

“When they won a majority of one seat in the 2011 election, that was the list they used. It was clean at that time. They won the 2015 election with that same list, it was clean at the time,” Nandlall said, suggesting that the PNC only questioned the validity of the list after its 2020 defeat.
Explaining the robustness of Guyana’s electoral process, Nandlall highlighted the presence of multiple international and local observers during the 2020 elections, including CARICOM, the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Centre.
According to Nandlall, these observers, along with the diplomatic community and local observer bodies, have not substantiated Alexander’s claims.

Responding to Alexander’s claims of a “bloated list” and calls for greater biometric security, Nandlall argued that Guyana’s current manual voting system is effective.
“The manual system is working. Why do they want to resort to technology when things can go wrong in a country like Guyana, where we can experience a blackout on election day?” he explained, expressing concern about possible technical glitches.
Nandlall also maintained that Alexander’s narrative aligns with historical claims made by the PNC, particularly when facing electoral losses, as he drew parallels with the PNC’s history of electoral fraud in previous decades.

“Alexander is still affected by the ghosts of the manipulation of 1968… and the manipulation of 1985. They will lose the next election. So they have already started finding excuses and reasons why they will lose,” Nandlall said.
Additionally, he highlighted the importance of countering what he described as “unfounded narratives” and reaffirmed the legitimacy of the 2020 electoral process.
“We have to take time to reject these narratives,” Nandlall said, urging vigilance against unsubstantiated claims that threaten confidence in the country’s democratic process.

Several prominent APNU+AFC political figures and GECOM officials are currently in court for alleged rigging and irregularities during the 2020 general elections.
The defendants are PNC activist Carol Smith-Joseph; former APNU+AFC government Health Minister Volda Lawrence; former GECOM chief electoral officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers; former District Four (Demerara-Mahaica) returning officer Clairmont Mingo; and GECOM employees Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings and Michelle Miller.

They are accused of various crimes, including misconduct in public office, issuance of falsified documents and conspiracy to deceive Guyana’s voters by declaring a false vote count.
The defendants are alleged to have inflated or facilitated the inflation of the results of Region Four, the country’s largest electoral district, to give the APNU+AFC coalition a majority victory in the March 2020 elections, when, in In reality, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had won by more than 15,000 votes. All defendants are being held on cash bail pending the hearing and determination of their matters.

In April 2023, the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the events of the 2020 General and Regional Elections found that there was collusion and collaboration among senior GECOM officials to divert votes towards the APNU +AFC instead of safeguarding and preserving the integrity of the electoral system.

President Stanley John and the commissioners (former chancellor Carl Singh and senior counsel Godfrey Smith) reached those conclusions based on the evidence of the numerous witnesses who had testified, together with reports from international observers.
The report found that Lowenfield brazenly made decisions and employed procedures in direct contradiction to the law and the will of the people. The findings also revealed that GECOM personnel ignored specific instructions from the court, used materials that were illegal and/or manipulated, and sided with APNU+AFC officers to reprimand observers whenever objections were raised.