Former GECOM Information Technology (IT) Manager Aneal Giddings on Wednesday acknowledged removing a GECOM server during a bomb scare despite being instructed not to do so but said he thought it was his duty to protect it.
Giddings made the statements while under cross-examination by attorney Nigel Hughes before Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court, in the ongoing trial arising from the disputed 2020 General and Regional Elections.
Giddings was questioned extensively about his handling of the SOPs and server during the events at GECOM’s Ashmins Building on March 5, 2020, when a bomb threat led to an evacuation of the facility.
He confirmed that after staff were instructed to leave, he remained at the tabulation centre until later that night. Asked what official business he was conducting, Giddings said he was “packaging and securing SOPs” in the absence of the other stakeholders.
Asked whether he was carrying out the operation on his own, he answered: “Yes.”
Giddings acknowledged that he did not inform anyone that he remained in the room with the election documents.
When Hughes asked where in his statement he had disclosed that he was alone in the room after the other staff had been sent home, Giddings stated “I left it out.”
The court was shown video footage in connection with Giddings’ presence at the tabulation centre. He identified himself in the footage and recognised the location as the parking lot of Ashmin’s Building.
Hughes put to Giddings that the footage showed him in the room with the SOPs and that he had an opportunity to switch them.
“Yes,” Giddings answered. He also agreed that nobody had authorised the switching of the SOPs.
Giddings further acknowledged that when Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers later questioned him about whether he was doing anything illegal, he told her no.
He said he did not document which SOPs he had examined while alone at the centre and testified that he left the documents there after Myers instructed him to leave the documents and the facility.
Server removed despite instruction
Hughes also took Giddings through the circumstances surrounding his removal of the GECOM server during the March 5 evacuation.
Giddings confirmed that the server was manually backed up and that GECOM had a system for regularly backing up the data. He agreed that the server had been backed up approximately one hour before he removed it.
Asked whether he knew at the time that he was removing the server that the data had been backed up up to an hour earlier, he answered: “Correct.”
He also testified that he became aware of the bomb threat approximately an hour before he removed the server. Hughes asked whether he had sufficient time to back up the system after learning of the threat and before deciding to remove the server.
Giddings answered “Yes.”
The court heard that approximately 10 minutes after receiving an indication of the bomb threat, Myers asked Giddings whether the information on the server could be backed up.
He said she did, and that he responded “Yes.”
Giddings confirmed that Myers then instructed him to carry out the backup. He said he backed up the information to a flash drive and informed Myers that the backup had been completed before he removed the server.
Asked whether, when Myers specifically instructed him not to remove the server, he had already told her that he had backed up the information, Giddings answered: “Yes, sir.”
He confirmed that Myers had asked whether the information could be placed on a flash drive and that he had backed it up accordingly. He said he did not give the flash drive to Myers.
Hughes then put to Giddings that when he removed the server despite Myers’ instructions, he knew there was already a backup copy of the election data. Giddings agreed.
He also agreed that the server was therefore not the only record of the election data up to the point at which the backup was made.
Despite knowing that, and despite Myers’ instruction not to remove it, Giddings acknowledged that he took it upon himself to remove the server. “Yes, sir,” he said.
The court heard that there was no independent off-site or cloud storage of the election data at the time.
Giddings acknowledged that he recognised this as a high-risk situation, but said he had recommended that independent off-site storage be implemented.
Server remained in car for about 2½ hours
Giddings testified that after removing the server from the building, he placed it in his vehicle and went to the muster point on High Street.
He agreed that the server remained in his car for approximately two and a half hours, although he clarified that he was not with it throughout that period.
Asked whether he informed Myers where he had placed the server, Giddings said: “No, I didn’t.”
He also said he did not inform any of the commissioners where the server was located.
Giddings confirmed, however, that he informed his deputy in the IT department, Ali Baksh, that he had removed the server and placed it in his car. Hughes pressed him on why he did not inform Myers or the commissioners. Giddings initially said he could not recall the reason.
He later explained that, at the time he removed the server, he had interacted with Myers, who was instructing him not to proceed.
Giddings described the manner in which Myers spoke to him as aggressive.
He said he removed the server because he believed it was his duty and responsibility, as IT Manager, to protect and manage GECOM’s information resources. When Hughes asked what statutory duty he had to protect GECOM’s information and resources, Giddings acknowledged that there was no statutory position giving him such a responsibility.
He agreed that the responsibility he was referring to came from his employment as GECOM’s IT Manager. He also clarified that the responsibility was not statutory.
Singh intervenes
Giddings further testified that the server was eventually returned only after GECOM Chairperson, Justice of Appeal (ret’d) Claudette Singh, intervened. He said Singh spoke to him about the server and instructed him to return it. Giddings said he complied with Singh’s instruction and returned the server. He testified that the manner in which he was spoken to was the reason he ultimately returned it.
Giddings accepted during the cross-examination that his removal of the server caused a delay in the resumption of the tabulation process. Asked whether he accepted that it was his action that caused the delay, he answered: “Correct.”
He said that when the server was brought back into GECOM, it took approximately one-and-a-half to two hours to reinstate it.
He also confirmed that Myers subsequently wrote him formally about the removal of the server. Giddings said the correspondence outlined the actions he had taken, stated that they were in contravention of election procedures and required him to respond within 48 hours.
Asked whether he responded by explicitly confirming that the removal of the server was unauthorised, Giddings said he did not use those words. He was then asked whether, as head of GECOM’s IT department, he accepted that he had been in gross violation of his contract.
“Yes,” Giddings answered.
He also testified that no audit was conducted to determine whether the data on the server had been changed following the incident.
Video evidence and unidentified man
Giddings acknowledged that he knew security cameras were installed at the Ashmins Building, although he said he did not know who managed them.
Video footage was shown to him during the proceedings after the prosecution objected to it being played openly in court on the basis that it could prejudice minds. The footage was instead shown to Giddings on a smaller device.
He identified himself in the footage and recognised the Ashmins Building parking lot. Giddings agreed that the footage captured him. Hughes also questioned him about footage showing him interacting with a man outside the building. Giddings acknowledged that the man gave him something but said he could not recall what he had been given or who the man was. He further admitted that he had omitted that interaction from his statement.
Discussion