Benn says threats of violence by Smith-Joseph disrupted the tabulation of votes for Region Four

–Former GECOM commissioner accuses APNU+AFC Chief Scrutineer of vigorously promoting use of spreadsheet

As a former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) commissioner, Robeson Benn told the court in the ongoing 2020 election fraud trial that Carol Smith-Joseph threatened him and others with violence and her outburst resulted in an abrupt end to the tabulation process for Region Four.

“She was threatening me, and then she threatened us,” Benn told defence attorney Dexter Todd during a heated cross-examination, stating, “The police were there and saw her threatening people. I was there.”

Benn, who was a GECOM commissioner during the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections and later served as Minister of Home Affairs, rejected Todd’s suggestion that he was being facetious.

“No, I am not,” he replied.

Smith-Joseph, APNU+AFC Chief Scrutineer and an executive member of the PNC/R during the 2020 national and regional elections, is among nine people charged in connection with an alleged conspiracy to alter the election results to deliver victory to APNU+AFC, the losing party.

Wednesday’s exchanges centred on her role during the presentation of a disputed spreadsheet, the ability of those present to properly scrutinise the figures, and Benn’s account of the conduct that accompanied a chorus of objections.

Todd questioned whether Benn had any knowledge that Smith-Joseph helped prepare the spreadsheet.

“You have no knowledge that Carol Joseph helped prepare the spreadsheet?” he asked.

Benn responded by describing her promotion of its use and her behaviour when objections were raised.

“She was vociferous in promoting the use of the spreadsheet,” he testified, but explaining that, “When we raised objections, Carol Joseph made a scene. She rushed at people and threatened them. She played a prominent role in breaking up the tabulation process.”

Benn maintained that police officers were present and witnessed the threats, as local, regional and foreign observers began to leave.

Todd also questioned Benn about the equipment used to display the figures.

Benn identified the projector as GECOM’s but said he did not know who owned the bedsheet onto which the spreadsheet was projected.

“It was out there and blowing in the wind,” he said.

When Benn maintained that the numbers could not be seen, Todd challenged his use of “we,” describing the assessment as subjective and telling him to speak for himself.

The exchange brought the questioning back to whether participants could properly examine the numbers being presented – a central issue in Benn’s account of why objections arose in the first place.

Benn also contrasted the disputed tabulation with the subsequent recount, telling the court that all parties and their representatives agreed with the PPP/C and APNU+AFC figures during that later exercise.

The cross-examination repeatedly became confrontational, with Todd cutting into Benn’s responses and speaking over him.

At one point, Benn challenged the attorney’s manner of questioning directly.

“While you were screaming and shouting … I had answered the question,” he said.

None of the five defence attorneys was physically present in the courtroom during the exchanges. They participated remotely, their amplified voices carrying loudly through the small room.

As Benn answered from the witness stand, his responses at times competed with Todd’s voice over the courtroom speakers.

Earlier in the day, Inspector Rochelle Peters apologised to Magistrate Faith McGusty, who had issued an arrest warrant following her absence from Tuesday’s proceedings.

Defence attorney Eusi Anderson, also appearing online, questioned Peters as to whether she was attending court because she was summoned to give evidence.

Peters said yes. Anderson asked whether she had been allowed to review her statement and whether she had typed it herself. She answered in the affirmative to both questions.

Peters earlier evidence concerned a passport application in former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield’s name. She described her work as a data-entry supervisor at the Central Immigration and Passport Office and explained how fingerprint authentication was used to access the system.

Her evidence forms part of the prosecution’s signature-comparison evidence. A police handwriting expert previously testified about matching signatures on Lowenfield’s passport documents with signatures on election-related documents.

Anderson ended his cross-examination with a remark about Peters’ advancement in the Police Force.

“Belated congratulations to Miss Peters on your promotion,” he said.

Although Anderson did not expressly allege that Peters’ promotion was a reward for her evidence, it was implicit in his comment.

Related

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.