Dear Editor,
On Wednesday, Chief Returning Officer Keith Lowenfield presented documents relating to the March 2, 2020 Election to the Registrar of the Supreme Court for safekeeping.
This is in line with a court order that all election materials be turned in for evidential inquiry at the forthcoming election petition hearing, as well as for their own court proceedings.
Now, see how easy that was? No fanfare, no drama, no political posture, just passing on the evidence. I’m talking about all 2339 voting statements (SOPs) and recount statements (SORs) to be kept by the court.
From the looks of it and from Lowenfield’s demeanor, the commission and other legal brains on that commission probably had a nudge for him to act civilly, in accordance with the law. That law states that, at the close of an election, the Chief Returning Officer should produce all original documents relating to that election.
Furthermore, and worth noting, it is not a “sole custodian”, nor a law in itself, where it can interfere or falsify any of the self-made documents. In short, Mr. Lowenfield cannot assign such privileges to himself. As a subordinate officer, he is subject to the orders of the law.
As such, all election materials remain public documents for the safekeeping of the GECOM, and not the private domain of an individual or party, or for it to be colored by someone’s party views. So, Lowenfield would be under a great deal of pressure to show how the signatures of political officials and Government Ministers came to be on the voting statements for Class No. 4. I don’t know how he would move his way out of this one, but left is visible.
To sum it all up, I would say there will be a conviction, because when this issue comes up for hearing, Lowenfield and the company must lead a defense as to why those original documents were not tendered at the time of District verification 4 election results?
Another question he has to ask himself is: why, and for what purpose, the Ashmins Building and Cowan Street statements have been replaced by fraudulent figures?
As Chief Election Officer for many years, he cannot fake ignorance, which he does not know the requirements of his job description, as well as the procedures governing a declaration; certainly not!
What the events show clearly is a public official acting in conjunction with individuals from a political party to rig the election.
Lowenfield shenanigans are downright disgusting. Nor can he fight the natural consequence of this case as it relates to his fraudulent statements. If it is foolish, then the State has the right of appeal. The State has the means and ability to do so, and this would go up to the Caribbean Court of Justice. My point is, the consequences will be dire if it resists!
What he can do safely is to fall on court mercies and plead for mercy when sentence time comes up. In either scenario, there will be a conviction, which would send out the strongest signals to all fraudsters that rigging would not be tolerated.

Neil Adams

Previous articleSchultz to lead Berbice U-19, Glasgow appointed deputy