Amanza DISAGREES With Azruddin Mohamed Will This Cause a SPLIT?

[00:00:00]Question for the leaders of the political parties of Guyana and for the Guyanese public. Is it a wise or ethical idea to put the same three lawyers at GECOM to represent the opposition? The same three who are representing you in a highly controversial criminal extradition case? Ask yourselves, will a decision like this strengthen public confidence or raise eyebrows? Do you want to put yourself in an awkward position where people begin to ask whose interest are really being represented?

[00:00:32]Owing to comments and to might I add strong pushback from the Forward Guyana Movement Party leader Amanza Walton-Desir, some citizens of Guyana are now asking these same questions.

[00:00:46]Others are giving Mohamed the side eye.

[00:00:50]How about we just cut to the chase? If the lawyers defending opposition leader Azzamuddin Mohamed in an active extradition battle are nominated to serve as opposition commissioners on GECOM, an unavoidable question emerges.

[00:01:05]Who exactly would they be representing?

[00:01:08]The opposition electorate, meaning supporters of Harmon and Mohamed? Will they represent all of the electorate of Guyana? Or will they be representing the man who pays their legal fees? Let's rewind. There is an ongoing fight over the replacement of the current opposition commissioners at the Guyana Elections Commission. Those commissioners are Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin, and Desmond Trotman.

[00:01:36]They were installed to represent the opposition electorate. They were installed to look out for Guyanese citizens. To get the full scoop on that situation, see the link placed at the top right of the video or you can check out our channel's page for that video.

[00:01:53]On that basis, Mohamed sent a letter to Aubrey Norton, the leader of the APNU, sometime within the past 10 to 12 days.

[00:02:02]Mohamed sent a letter to Norton informing him of the names of three persons that he wants to represent his opposition at GECOM. It just so happens that those three individuals are lawyers, Roy Steel Ford, Siand Dhurjon, and Damian Da Silva. Mohamed also stated he may advise President Irfaan Ali to appoint these men to GECOM. And that's where the controversy begins about potential conflict of interest and whether that's right or ethical. After all, these are Mohamed's personal lawyers. They're actively helping Mohamed to win his extradition case and avoid being handed over to the US to face a slew of criminal charges. Now, before the keyboard warriors start typing, let's make something absolutely clear. This discussion is not an accusation. No one is suggesting that a lawyer automatically loses professional ethics simply because they're representing a client, but there's an important distinction. GECOM is not a courtroom. GECOM is arguably the single most important democratic institution in Guyana. Those commissioners who are appointed to GECOM are expected to represent the interest of hundreds of thousands of opposition voters, not the private legal interest of one political leader. And the same goes for the government commissioners. They are not placed there to represent the government, they're placed there to represent the interest of its electorate, the government electorate.

[00:03:39]In fact, commissioners should represent all electorates, all Guyanese citizens, not the PPP or the opposition, whichever opposition is in play at that point in time. But you could argue the opposite.

[00:03:52]You could say not because someone is a lawyer, they cannot be a GECOM commissioner. That is cool, but we're not saying that. The issue is the perception of bias. If the lawyers who are representing Mohamed are appointed GECOM commissioners for WIN. And it's at this juncture that Amanza Walton-Desir's intervention becomes significant.

[00:04:14]Walton-Desir nominated Pastor Nigel London who is closely affiliated with her party. Yes.

[00:04:22]Exactly.

[00:04:23]>> Y'all see what going on?

[00:04:24]>> It's fight for self. Anyway, politics is politicking in Guyana right now. But getting back to the issue, Walton-Desir's argument is remarkably simple. Appointments should avoid situations that create unnecessary perceptions of conflict because perception is reality. If citizens lose confidence in the referee, they may stop believing in the game. We're talking about optics here. Imagine hiring a personal attorney to defend a multi-million dollar lawsuit. That lawyer has one single professional duty to protect the client's interest, to advance the client's position, to argue for the client to win. That loyalty is exactly what every client expects and pays for. Now, imagine appointing that same lawyer to a commission where decisions could affect political processes involving that same client. Should the public simply assume that two completely different hats can be worn without creating reasonable questions? Perhaps.

[00:05:34]Perhaps not. But the question itself is legitimate and it's one worth exploring.

[00:05:42]Supporters of WIN will argue that lawyers represent clients every day without adopting their personal views, and they could be correct. Lawyers defend people accused of crimes they did not commit, and people accused of crimes they absolutely did commit. Professional independence is part of the job, but GEC is different. This is not a courtroom.

[00:06:10]GEC is not a courtroom. Commissioners are not advocates. They are institutional guardians, guardians of the Constitution as far as it relates to elections. They are there to protect the electorate. They sit at the intersection of law, politics, elections, and public trust. The credibility of the commissioners is their greatest asset.

[00:06:34]Credibility is astonishingly easy to lose, even with the perception of bias.

[00:06:40]Yet again, there is another question that deserves attention. Who do opposition commissioners actually represent? Do they represent the leader of the opposition? Let's not get this twisted. Do they represent the leader of the opposition? Is that the sole reason of their appointment? Do they represent the largest opposition party, or do they represent every citizen who voted against the government? Those are not necessarily the same people. Opposition commissioners are supposed to safeguard confidence in elections for the entire opposition electorate, not to function as an extension of one politician's personal, legal, or political goals.

[00:07:26]Definitely not as an extension of one politician's personal, legal, or political team. Perhaps the most troubling possibility is not actual bias. It's subconscious bias. Every human being develops loyalties. Lawyers work closely with clients. They strategize together. They spend countless hours building trust. It is normal for that type of relationship to be created. It's normal for that type of relationship to evolve. But, should that same relationship exist inside an institution? An institution that must command confidence from political allies, rivals, and independent voters alike. Again, legality is only one part of the equation. Public confidence is the other. There's an old principle repeated in courtrooms across the Commonwealth. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

[00:08:30]The same principle applies to elections.

[00:08:33]Election integrity must not only exist, it must be visible, obvious. It must be beyond reasonable suspicion. You see, once citizens begin questioning the impartiality of elections officials, every future decision becomes vulnerable to political interpretation. Perhaps this is why Walton Desir's comments deserve serious consideration. She's not necessarily questioning the competence of the proposed nominees, meaning the three lawyers who are representing Muhammad in the extradition case. What Aminta Wilson Desir is questioning is whether Guyana should voluntarily create avoidable controversy around one of its most important constitutional institutions, GECOM. That's a governance question, not a partisan question. All stakeholders should be concerned.

[00:09:31]Ultimately, this debate is bigger than Azruddin Mohamed. It is bigger than Win.

[00:09:36]It is bigger than the WPA in the nation hood party. It is bigger than the APNU, the PNCR, the AFC. Is the AFC even a thing?

[00:09:48]Whatever party, whatever opposition party or political movement there is in Guyana, this controversy, this debate is bigger than all the opposition parties.

[00:10:00]It's about whether public institutions should be insulated, should be protected from relationships that could cause reasonable citizens to question their independence. And that, my dear listeners, is the final takeaway.