Defence lawyers shielding real culprits of 2020 election fraud; blames observers/diplomats for chaos

In the ongoing election fraud trial, stemming from the controversial March 2020 general elections, defence lawyers have attempted to deflect blame from the real culprits, according to Attorney General Anil Nandlall.

Speaking on Tuesday night, Nandlall defended the role of local observers, including Rosalinda Rasul, who remains on the witness stand, and pushed back against the defence’s narrative that other parties were responsible for the electoral chaos.

The defence has attempted to shift responsibility onto various groups, including representatives of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), diplomats, and observers, accusing them of causing disruptions during the electoral process. Nandlall, however, dismissed these claims as part of a broader effort to muddy the waters and divert attention from the actual perpetrators of the fraud.

“The argument being peddled in these election fraud cases is that certain groups—observers, diplomatic representatives, and PPP supporters—were responsible for the chaos at the Ashman Building,” Nandlall said.

“But the true chaos was caused by the Returning Officer for Region 4, [Clairmont] Mingo, who used a spreadsheet instead of the mandated Form 24 to tabulate the votes.”

He further elaborated that the objection was not to the principle of tabulation itself but to the improper method employed by Mingo. The PPP and other stakeholders, including the Guyana Bar Association, the Private Sector Commission, and international observers, all raised concerns about Mingo’s actions during the vote counting process.

Nandlall pointed out that the Bar Association’s President at the time had even read aloud from Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act to emphasise the correct procedure.

“There was no objection to the principle of tabulation. The objection was to the use of a spreadsheet, which was in direct violation of the legal framework,” Nandlall said, stressing that the defence’s efforts to focus on Rasul’s affidavit were a diversion.

The affidavit in question was sworn by Rosalinda Rasul, a key witness who supported the claims made by the PPP. Nandlall was quick to clarify that Rasul was not an agent of his or the PPP, despite the defence’s repeated attempts to suggest otherwise.

He pointed out that anyone who had witnessed the events could have sworn an affidavit, citing examples of prominent international figures who could have been asked to provide similar statements, such as former U.S. Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch.

In defending Rasul’s testimony, Nandlall remarked, “These people were simply testifying under oath about what they observed. Whether it was me or someone else who drafted the affidavit is irrelevant. The facts remain the same.”

Nandlall highlighted the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, which concluded that GECOM officials, in collaboration with politicians, had conspired to rig the election. “These findings are being ignored by those defending the actions of Mingo and his collaborators. They do not want the truth to come out,” Nandlall said.

“Five years ago, these events unfolded around this time,” Nandlall said. “Look back at your memories, and you will see how they try to rewrite the narrative. The truth cannot be hidden.”