GEORGETOWN, Guyana — Chief Justice Roxanne George will on Wednesday rule in a case that has stalled the declaration of results in Guyana’s landmark elections to determine which party will handle the country’s oil bonanza.

The chief justice yesterday heard the case filed by private citizen Reeaz Hollander, backed by attorneys from the Opposition PPP, that the returning officer, or the chief of Guyana’s largest electoral district, breached electoral laws when he declared the unverified count of the votes cast.

The process of verification is referred to in law as “counting of the votes polled” and is provided for by Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03.

District Four had 897 polling stations but the returning officer only allowed others to be present for the tabulation of 421 Statements of Poll, and aborted the process after. He then certified the votes counted and handed it to the country’s chief elections officer, who went ahead and prepared a final report of all ten electoral districts for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to declare a winner.

But the High Court granted an injunction blocking the declaration of the results. The chief justice’s ruling will determine what happens next.

Six affidavits were presented in the case yesterday, including from the returning officer Clairmont Mingo and the Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Meyers.

According to Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, representing Hollader, the affidavits of Meyers, Bond and Trotman all agree that the process described in law was suspended sometime on the evening of Thursday last, and it was to resume yesterday. Their witness was different from that of the returning officer who claimed that the entire process was completed on the night of Wednesday, March 4.

The returning officer swore to the court that at around 11:00 am Wednesday he began feeling unwell and went upstairs to instruct Senior Clerk Michelle Miller to continue the process. He said that he had to be rushed to the hospital, but again left Miller in charge.

He said that by that evening, Miller, along with others, inputted information, purportedly from the Statements of Poll, into the computer and then produced a spreadsheet. That information was then used by Mingo to produce a tabulation which he then declared on Thursday at around 2 pm.

However, the deputy chief elections officer, in her evidence, stated that sometime on Wednesday the use of the spreadsheet was discontinued, and the process was reverted to verification from the Statements of Poll.

Mendes also argued that it is the responsibility of the returning officer to do the adding up, but that he can appoint other elections officers. In this case, he said, Miller was a senior clerk and not an elections officer and so she could not have been used or designated by the returning officer.

He said that if the legal process is not followed it could lead to mistrust, suspicion and lack of confidence in results declared, and so there should be no reason why the court should not order to set aside the declaration of the returning officer.

Senior Counsel Neil Boston, representing Mingo, argued that the returning officer can adopt whatever methodology he decides he will pursue to come up with the results. Boston said the returning officer can sit with the persons who are entitled to be there and go through the Statements of Poll, or he can prepare a spreadsheet from the Statements he has and thereafter declare the amount of votes received by each party.

Boston argued that the returning officer is duty-bound to rely on the Statements of Poll which were remitted to him form the various polling places. According to Boston, the returning officer does not have to go through a period of resolving discrepancies that arise in relation to the Statements of Polls.

He said resolving any dispute is provided for after a declaration of the count is made, with Section 84 (2) providing for a recount.

Boston further argued that even if Mingo did not comply by doing a count in the presence of persons who are entitled to be there, it does not invalidate what was done nor does it invalidate the declaration he made.

The Chief Justice said that there didn’t seem to have been any uniform methodology in all regions as to how 84 (1) was to be applied.