Hughes can’t escape that AFC was part of coalition gov’t that tried to steal 2020 elections – Jagdeo

Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo has criticized the leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC) Nigel Hughes for his attempts to distance himself from the rigging of the 2020 elections, calling out Hughes for generating uncertainty during a crucial period prior to those polls.

At a press conference on Thursday, Jagdeo addressed recent statements by Hughes, in which he sought to separate himself from the controversial events surrounding the 2020 elections.

Jagdeo rejected Hughes’ claims and pointed out the AFC’s central role in the coalition government that attempted to rig the election results.

“Nigel Hughes cannot escape the fact that his party, the AFC, was part of the coalition government that tried to steal the 2020 elections,” Jagdeo said.

“Top members of his party, including his wife, were out there trying to lead the process of defending the theft of the elections.”
Jagdeo also highlighted Hughes’ failure to provide clear answers to key questions about the AFC’s actions during the election crisis.

The Vice President was pointed out when he criticized Hughes for avoiding accountability for the events that unfolded after the no-confidence vote in December 2018, which eventually led to the 2020 elections.

Jagdeo reminded the public that the AFC was complicit in the refusal to call elections immediately after the no-confidence motion was passed, opting instead to drag the process through the courts in an attempt to cling to power.

“The government had fallen after the no-confidence vote. The Constitution was clear about the three-month timeline to hold elections. But instead of adhering to the law, they deliberately delayed the process,” Jagdeo explained.

Hughes, a lawyer by profession, has recently attempted to downplay the legal and constitutional violations that took place, offering what Jagdeo described as “flawed” interpretations of critical rulings.

One such claim was Hughes’ interpretation of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling on the concept of “majority” in the context of parliamentary votes.

The CCJ clarified that an “absolute majority” refers to the majority of all elected members of the National Assembly, whereas a “simple majority” only requires a majority of those present on the day of the vote.

Jagdeo took issue with Hughes’ interpretation, stating that Hughes’ argument suggesting that both types of majority require the same number of votes was not only wrong, but showed a lack of understanding of basic legal principles.

“For a no-confidence motion, you need 33 votes to pass it, even if only 50 members are present in Parliament,” Jagdeo explained.

“Hughes’ attempt to blur the distinction between a simple and an absolute majority is not only legally incorrect but is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public,” he added.

Jagdeo also addressed the AFC leader’s repeated reluctance to apologize for the role his party played in the election crisis, questioning why Hughes continues to avoid taking responsibility.

“He keeps asking what they must apologize for, but the facts are clear. The AFC was directly involved in trying to rig the election and disenfranchise thousands of voters. The evidence, from Mingo’s fraudulent tabulation of votes to the efforts to discredit the CCJ ruling, is indisputable,” Jagdeo said.