HGP Nightly News – Tense exchanges marked proceedings in the ongoing 2020 Election Fraud trial on Monday as Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, appearing for the defence, put Ambassador Sasenarine Singh through a rigorous cross-examination centred on the limits of his memory, the handling of data he said he recorded, and what he directly witnessed during critical stages of the electoral process.
Appearing before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, Singh was repeatedly questioned by Hughes about whether information he entered on his laptop was ever submitted to GECOM, shared with international observers, or raised in any formal complaint. Singh answered no each time. When pressed on whether he could now remember the contents of that data, he eventually admitted that he could not recall it at that moment.
The cross-examination later shifted to former Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo and the declarations that became central to the post-election fallout. Under questioning, Singh said he did not hear what Mingo said during the alleged first declaration and could not remember a second one. He also acknowledged that he was not present where Mingo was allegedly making a declaration and agreed that, since he was not there, he could not say what Mingo actually stated.
Hughes relied on those responses to challenge Singh’s earlier account of the events, arguing that the witness could not properly speak to the content of any declaration if he neither heard it nor directly witnessed it. Singh, however, maintained that he believed a declaration was going to be made because, according to him, Mingo had passed by and said he was going upstairs to do so, though he agreed he was not present when that occurred.
A further point of contention emerged over statements of poll that Singh said were in his possession. Hughes asked whether, while those documents were with him, he had the opportunity to alter them. That line of questioning drew a forceful objection from the prosecution, which argued that the suggestion was scandalous and unsupported by any factual basis. Hughes responded that he was not accusing the witness of tampering, but was entitled to ask whether the opportunity existed, given that the documents had been in Singh’s possession.
Acting Chief Magistrate McGusty allowed the question in a limited form, ruling that Hughes could ask whether the witness had the opportunity, while making clear that the significance of any response would ultimately be for the court to assess. In reply, Singh said that while the statements of poll were in his possession from school to Freedom House, no one other than PPP persons was with him.
The court also heard questions about whether Singh had included statement of poll numbers in any statement he gave to the police and whether he could now identify those documents by number. At one stage, Singh said he would be able to identify them, although the exchange was marked by repeated uncertainty over details, locations, and the difference between what he personally observed and what he later read in newspapers.
