2020 Elections Trial: Accountant Terrence Jaskaran Faces Scrutiny Over Scope, Flawed Documents, and Lack of Peer Review

By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Forensic audit consultant and accountant Terrence Jaskaran returned to the witness stand on Monday for continued cross-examination in the ongoing 2020 General and Regional Elections fraud trial, where defense attorneys intensely challenged the methodology, evidentiary limitations, and institutional timing of his comparative analysis.

Under a rigorous line of questioning led by defense attorney Nigel Hughes, Jaskaran conceded that his analytical findings were never subjected to an independent professional or peer review.

Furthermore, the state-commissioned consultant admitted that his assignment did not include authenticating the raw election documents provided to him, verifying their chain of custody, or investigating what caused the widespread numerical discrepancies he flagged across multiple electoral districts.

The Scope of the Assignment: A Restricted Excel Calculation

Jaskaran testified that he was engaged as a forensic audit consultant to perform a numerical comparison between two specific sets of documents: Statements of Poll (SOPs) purportedly in the possession of then-Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, and the official Form 24 statutory declarations made by Returning Officers across Guyana’s ten electoral districts:

• The Methodology: The votes recorded for each contesting political party on the provided SOPs were manually keyed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, summed, and reconciled against the figures recorded on the Form 24 declarations handed to him by Police Inspector Nigel Stephen.
• Detected Variances: Jaskaran testified that numerical variances between the SOPs and the Form 24 declarations were detected across eight administrative divisions: Regions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, with the largest mathematical discrepancy identified in Region 4 (Demerara-Mahaica).
• Zero Discrepancies: No variances were detected in his analysis of Region 2 (Pomeroon-Supenaam) and Region 5 (Mahaica-Berbice).

Inconsistencies Exposed: Blank SOPs, Missing Forms, and Calculation Errors

Under detailed cross-examination by Hughes, significant evidentiary anomalies and procedural limitations in the audit material came to light:

• Flawed Region Eight Declaration: Jaskaran admitted that the Form 24 declaration for Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni) contained a fundamental calculation flaw because the declared total was not based on the mathematical sum of the underlying SOPs. In addition, the United Republican Party (URP) appeared on the official Form 24 with recorded votes despite having zero votes recorded on the corresponding SOPs.
• Region Six Discrepancies: In Region Six (East Berbice-Corentyne), Jaskaran’s reconciliation revealed that the certified SOPs actually contained higher vote totals than the Returning Officer’s declarations across all contesting political parties—including the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
• Signed Blank Statements of Poll: The consultant conceded that his source material included several completely blank SOPs that contained no visible numbers or party vote tallies whatsoever, yet bore authorized signatures at the bottom. Jaskaran confirmed he could not identify those signatures for the court.
• Missing Documents: When asked why several SOPs were absent from his analytical model, Jaskaran testified that Inspector Stephen simply informed him that the missing documents were “unavailable.”

Hughes Challenges Timing, Chain of Custody, and GECOM Server

The defense aggressively targeted the investigative integrity of the audit, highlighting that Jaskaran’s consultancy was commissioned by the PPP/C administration after criminal fraud charges had already been instituted against the defendants:

• Timing of Retainer: Hughes pressed Jaskaran on whether he was aware that charges had already been laid before his forensic services were procured. Jaskaran did not dispute the sequence of events or that he understood the underlying purpose of the state’s consultancy.
• Excluded Material: Jaskaran conceded that his instructions did not authorize him to examine external spreadsheets, analyze flash drives, verify document provenance, review the series of High Court and Court of Appeal orders issued between March 5 and March 13, 2020, or examine the legal framework of Order 60 (The National Recount Order).
• The GECOM Server: Jaskaran further stated that he never conducted any audit or technical examination of the core GECOM server, despite technical evidence previously introduced in the trial regarding its custody and data transfer protocols.

The Nine Accused in the Dock

The long-running criminal proceedings involve nine prominent defendants accused of conspiracy to defraud electors during the contentious March 2020 polls:

1. Keith Lowenfield (Former Chief Election Officer)
2. Roxanne Myers (Former Deputy Chief Election Officer)
3. Clairmont Mingo (Former Region Four Returning Officer)
4. Volda Lawrence (Opposition Member of Parliament & PNCR Chair)
5. Carol Smith-Joseph (PNCR Executive Member)
6. Sheffern February (GECOM Election Officer)
7. Enrique Livan (GECOM Election Officer)
8. Denise Bobb-Cummings (GECOM Election Officer)
9. Michelle Miller (GECOM Election Officer)

Cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness is scheduled to continue as the defense challenges the evidentiary weight of the state’s comparative audit.