LAST week, the trial of the nine individuals accused of attempting to perpetrate fraud and election rigging finally began at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court in front of Senior Magistrate Leron Daly.
Already, several star witnesses have been brought by the State such as the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development and PPP Elections Counting Agent at the time, Sonia Parag and Private Sector Elections Observer Rosalinda Rasul. The case has proceeded with many unnecessary hiccups and delays.
These delays, coupled with the many concerns raised before and during the case, could impact the quality of justice that Guyanese expect to get from this case. If this is not remedied quickly, it could lead to the State seeking the intervention of a higher and binding court such as the CCJ, hopefully dispensing justice more independently and fairly. The public will conclude that it is not interested in safeguarding and protecting the interests of all Guyanese by upholding the country’s laws and punishing those guilty of election fraud and conspiracy if the court does not pay careful attention to its proceedings.
Firstly, the media has a powerful role to play in this election fraud case. There must not be any attempt to regulate and limit its coverage of the matters that ‘it’ considers as germane to establishing the truth. Concerns about the media reportage and the case being tried in the Court of Opinion should not be a reason to tamper with the freedoms the media enjoys. This is non-sequitur and weak because the media in Guyana has always understood the burden of responsibility and truth instances like these.
Access to both the prosecution and defence attorneys after the conclusions of the day-to-day court sessions is critical to clarify any misconception the media might have about the facts of the case.
This will test the maturity and openness of both sides about what was said. No attempt must be made to muzzle or censor the media if they criticise developments that occurred in court as they are the gatekeepers and custodians of the public. That is not to say, that the court does not enjoy the freedom to pull up or haul any media house over the coals for their reportage on a matter once it is biased, wrong, or untoward.
Generally, the media must report on this court matter with an objective eye. They will be fearless in their storytelling of the court drama. Also, these journalists must pay very close attention to the words and meanings in the court because this will have an impact on what they are witnessing before their eyes. So, accuracy demands the media’s attention.
Secondly, the courts must respect the rules and systems that have been put in place to govern this case. Things such as the admissibility of evidence, note-taking, records of court, documentation, and the general rules must be the same across the board. There must be no covert attempt to favour one applicant over another.
There must be no changing of rules or questions left up to the interpretation of the defence or prosecution. This case is critical for democracy and the rule of law. It is too important to be treated with scant regard and there must be the upholding and the strict application of the rules that govern the trial and the judiciary.
This will enhance the process and make it easy to arrive at what is hoped will be inexplicable truth. The State, hopefully, will handle itself with distinction and integrity when prosecuting the individuals.
On the other hand, the defence also operates both in and out of court with the highest conviction and respect for the laws, and the alleged innocence of its clients. The defence must not seek to mud-sling and politicise the event now. They should be firmly focused on the evidence including circumstantial evidence.
Thirdly, the court case must have the attention of every Guyanese who is law-abiding and respectful of the Constitution. It must grip the attention of regional and Caribbean personalities who fear that they could be susceptible to a similar incident. They should be glued to their preferred news media for information on the trial and its progress, especially since democracy is on trial.
Democracy, after all, might have been saved but the long arm of justice must be meted out to the persons who were threatening it by attempting to rig the will of the people through fraud and elections skullduggery. They must be brought to justice now. It is essential that justice be done, and it is equally vital that justice not be confused with revenge, for the two are wholly different.
The public demands it and the government which looks to the State must be seen as exacting this justice from these co-conspirators and individuals. The PPP promised that it would not back down from the trial. It seemed this was an unwritten election promise made in the aftermath of the five-month period which saw the unprecedented turmoil and electoral disaster they brought on Guyana at the 2020 election.
If this case ends up at the CCJ, then the government and PPP would have tried and seen to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to elections skullduggery that could have locked it out of government indefinitely if APNU+AFC got its way. The public should view the party and government as respecting the law and having patience in this matter. The government has also exercised restraint and temperance in how it goes about correcting the wrongs of the previous government.
Finally, Guyana can ill-afford any other missteps with the handling of this court case at the level of the executive, magistracy or judiciary. They must get it right and the system of justice must be allowed to flow freely. No amount of politics will serve to distract the attention of the Guyanese public because they subverted democracy and freedom in this country for five long brutish months and held up progress and development, but the Guyanese public stood up for what is right, and the rightful government.
Now, let the chips fall where they might because justice is blind. Guyana must set an example before the next election is due. And, let’s be clear about it, Martin Luther King said that ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. …”