Attorney Nigel Hughes yesterday accused former GECOM IT Manager Aneal Giddings of being “integrally involved in the rigging of the elections in 2020”, following intense questioning over his possession of the GECOM server, his time alone with Statements of Poll (SoPs) and his interaction with two unidentified men at the GECOM car park.
Giddings denied the allegation.
The accusation came at the end of Hughes’ continued cross-examination of Giddings before Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court, where Hughes sought to establish that Giddings had access to critical election materials and GECOM’s server for a significant period on March 5, 2020.
Hughes put to Giddings that, on that day, he had the GECOM server in his possession for two and a half hours and he had also been alone with SOPs in the tabulation room for approximately four hours.
Giddings agreed.
Hughes then pointed to Giddings’ interaction with two unidentified men in the car park and the receipt of an unidentified object from one of them.
Giddings maintained that he did not know the men and could not remember what was handed to him.
Hughes ultimately put to him that the combination of those circumstances showed that he was involved in the manipulation of the elections.
“Now, sir, let me suggest that you were integrally involved in the rigging of the elections in 2020 based on everything I have said to you this morning,” Hughes said.
Giddings replied:
“I deny that.”
Earlier, Hughes returned to video footage showing Giddings leaving his car and approaching two men in the GECOM car park.
Giddings confirmed that he had deliberately walked towards the men and spoken with them before returning to his vehicle.
Asked whether he knew the men, Giddings said he did not.
He also could not recall why he had left his car to speak to two people he said were strangers.
Hughes suggested that the men had been waiting in the car park and that Giddings had deliberately approached them because he knew them.
Giddings denied this.
The court then examined footage showing one of the men, wearing a blue top and white cap, approaching Giddings’ vehicle after Giddings returned to it. Giddings agreed that the man handed him something. He also agreed that he had lowered his car window, but said he could not recall what the man handed him and disputed Hughes’ suggestion that he had lowered the window specifically to receive the item.
Hughes suggested that the object could have been a flash drive or another computer-related device containing manipulated election data. Giddings “absolutely” denied the suggestion.
Hughes put to Giddings that he had deliberately taken the server to the car park and allowed the two men access to it before going to the muster point, thereby creating what Hughes described as “plausible deniability.” Giddings denied the allegation.
Hughes further suggested that the two men had access to the server for the two and a half hours it remained in Giddings’ vehicle and that this was why Giddings repeatedly refused instructions from then Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers to return it.
Again, Giddings denied the allegation.
Hughes stressed that he was not suggesting the server was accessed by the men at night, but that the alleged access occurred during the day while the server was in Giddings’ vehicle. Giddings confirmed that he understood the allegation but denied it.
Hughes also questioned Giddings about whether he had made any attempt, after his previous appearance in court, to have police or GECOM locate additional security footage from March 5 that could potentially support his account. Giddings said he had not. He said he was not aware that he could have done so.
Hughes pointed out that Giddings already knew video footage existed showing him in the car park receiving something from one of the men. Giddings agreed that he knew the footage existed.
He also acknowledged that, given his position as an IT specialist, he knew there was a possibility that additional footage from March 5 existed. However, he said he was not aware that footage covering the entire day existed.
Hughes pressed him on why he had not attempted to obtain even partial footage that might have assisted him. Giddings did not say that he had made such an attempt.
Hughes then returned to Giddings’ time inside the tabulation room with the SOPs.
Giddings had previously acknowledged that he and another IT staff member remained behind after Myers instructed everyone to leave.
Under questioning, Giddings estimated that he remained in the room for approximately four hours after the instruction to leave.
Hughes asked whether Giddings could identify a single Standard Operating Procedure that authorised him, as IT manager, to remain alone with the SOPs in the absence of party representatives, observers and other GECOM personnel.
Giddings said he could not identify a specific SOP permitting him to do so. Asked whether he had ever seen an SOP allowing the head of IT to be alone with SOPs under those circumstances, Giddings again said he could not provide one. Hughes suggested that no such SOP existed. Giddings maintained that GECOM would have documentation outlining the process and suggested that relevant minutes of Commission meetings or other documents held by senior GECOM officials could contain information about the process.
However, when Hughes pressed him to identify a document specifically authorising him to remain alone with the SOPs, Giddings could not point to one.
Hughes then questioned Giddings about the source of his authority to remain with the SOPs. Giddings acknowledged that his IT Manager position did not give him a statutory role. Asked whether he had any statutory responsibility for the Statements of Poll, Giddings said: “Statutory, no.”
Giddings nevertheless maintained that his authority came from his appointment by the Commission. Hughes challenged that position, noting that Giddings was not GECOM itself and did not possess statutory powers under the Constitution.
Giddings maintained that, by virtue of his appointment as IT Manager, he had responsibility for the documents.
Hughes summed up the timeline for March 5.
He asked Giddings whether, for a minimum of six and a half hours, he had GECOM’s server in his possession for two and a half hours and had sole access to the SOPs for another four hours. Giddings agreed. Hughes then pointed to the interaction with the two unidentified men, noting that Giddings had GECOM property in his possession for hours on the same day that he spoke with the men and received an unidentified object from one of them. Giddings again acknowledged the circumstances.
Hughes then made his final allegation that Giddings was integrally involved in the alleged rigging of the 2020 elections.
Giddings denied it.
Hughes ended his cross-examination by telling the court he had no further questions.
The 2020 elections fraud case concerns allegations arising from the handling of Guyana’s March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. The matter is before Magistrate McGusty, and the prosecution has been presenting evidence concerning events surrounding the Region Four tabulation.
Among the defendants are former Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers and former District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo.
Discussion