Elections fraud trial: Defence questions impartiality of elections observer

Mar 19, 2025 News

---

Kaieteur News- On Tuesday, defence attorneys in the elections fraud case raised concerns over the role played by Rosalinda Rasul as an observer, suggesting that she did not act as an independent and neutral observer during the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

The trial, which is being heard before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, involves multiple defendants, including former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield; former Returning Officer for District Four, Clairmont Mingo; former Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO), Roxanne Myers; former Minister of Health, Volda Lawrence; APNU+AFC Chief Scrutineer, Carol Smith Joseph; and former GECOM employees, Sheffern February, Enrique Liven, Michelle Miller, and Denise Babb-Cummings.

The defendants are accused of conspiring to manipulate the election results between March 2 and August 2, 2020, at the Ashmins’ Building in Georgetown, thereby defrauding the electors of Guyana.

During cross-examination by defence attorney, Eusi Anderson, Rasul’s impartiality was scrutinized. Anderson questioned Rasul about her various government roles, including her positions as the head of the Diaspora Unit at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Chairman of the Transport and Harbours Department Advisory Council, and Director of the Canawaima Ferry Service. Anderson’s questioning sought to establish a possible conflict of interest in her position as an election observer, particularly following the administration of the Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) government in 2020.

Anderson focused on events from March 4, 2020, at the Ashmins’ Building. Rasul acknowledged being in a room with other observers and PPP/C members, along with the Statement of Polls (SOP). She confirmed seeing several of the accused, including Keith Lowenfield, Roxanne Myers, and Enrique Liven, but not Michelle Miller, Volda Lawrence, Carol Smith Joseph, or Denise Babb-Cummings.

Rasul further admitted that no APNU/AFC members or observers were present in the room. She also stated that she was unaware of when the SOP had been moved, and conceded that the possibility of numbers being altered on the SOPs existed.

Anderson pressed Rasul on her observations the following day, March 5, 2020, during the tabulation process. He asked whether she saw any of the defendants communicating in person or electronically regarding the election.

Rasul said that she did not, and when asked if she had evidence of the defendants coordinating to declare any election results, she replied, “I did not see that.”

The defence attorney also asked her whether she had observed any of the defendants tampering with or altering the SOPs in her presence. Rasul responded, “No.” Anderson then questioned Rasul’s role as an observer, asking if she had been paid to make a statement and whether she was compensated by AmCham for her role as an election observer.

Rasul firmly stated that she was not paid for her role, explaining that she had voluntarily assumed the position. When questioned about her other government roles after the PPP/C assumed power in 2020, she confirmed that while some of the roles were voluntary, her position as head of the Diaspora Unit was a paid position.

Anderson requested that Rasul disclose her salary for these roles, but the prosecution objected, arguing that such information was irrelevant. Magistrate McGusty agreed, noting that Rasul had already stated she was paid for some of her positions and preferred not to disclose specific salary details.

Anderson withdrew the request but continued to question Rasul about her roles under the PPP/C administration, highlighting that she had not been appointed to these positions before the 2020 elections. He asked if she still maintained her position as an independent observer. Rasul maintained that she was an independent observer, stating that her statements to Attorney General Anil Nandlall were “solely voluntary.”

The defence attorney also probed Rasul’s training as an election observer, noting that the American Chamber of Commerce of Guyana (AmCham) only provided a one-day training session. She admitted that she was unaware of the roles of the defendants and had never reviewed any documents regarding her duties. Anderson suggested that her limited training called into question her ability to serve as an independent observer.

The prosecution objected, claiming Anderson’s questions were repetitive and designed to fit his narrative.

Additionally, Anderson questioned Rasul about her affidavit, in which she made negative statements about the defendants’ actions during the tabulation process. He asked if it was fair for an independent observer to sign such an affidavit without consulting the other side.

Rasul responded, “No, I did not consult with the other side”.  She continued, “I have nothing to hide from anyone, whether they are from the PPP or the APNU+ AFC or ANUG, if they wanted a statement …I would have gladly given it to them.”

Further questioning by Anderson focused on whether Rasul had received any gifts from the PPP/C, to which she answered no. The prosecution once again objected, citing the irrelevance of the question.

At the conclusion of the day’s proceedings, Anderson requested an adjournment, which was granted by Magistrate McGusty. The trial will resume on Thursday, March 20, 2025.

(Elections fraud trial: Defence questions impartiality of elections observer)

---

• Chief Elections Officer, Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, Elections fraud Trial, elections observer

---