Former GECOM IT Manager testifies to removing server to protect election data

Former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Information Technology (IT) Manager Aneal Giddings told the court that he removed the election server from the Commission’s Ashmin Building command centre during a March 2020 bomb threat because he believed it was his duty to protect GECOM’s information resources.

Giddings made the statement on Wednesday during cross-examination by Attorney Nigel Hughes before Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty in the ongoing trial into allegations of fraud stemming from the March 2020 General and Regional Elections.

His explanation came as Hughes pressed him on why he removed the server despite Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers instructing him not to do so.

Giddings told the court that, at the time he removed the server, he had interacted with Myers, who was instructing him not to proceed with removing it.

He nevertheless went ahead.

Explaining his decision, Giddings said, “I removed that server, nevertheless, because I know it is my duty and responsible for the protection and management of the information resources that are the property of the Guyana Elections Commission.”

Hughes then challenged Giddings on the extent of his authority as IT Manager, pointing out that under his employment arrangement he was required to report to his superior and abide by instructions. Giddings acknowledged that he had no statutory position, giving him authority over the election server.

Hughes asked whether Giddings’ position as IT manager was superior to that of the Deputy Chief Elections Officer.

The witness, who is now the country’s Data Protection Commissioner, replied, “No, it wasn’t.”

A significant part of the cross-examination focused on whether there was actually a need to remove the physical server to protect the election data.

Giddings testified that GECOM had a system for regularly backing up information on the server and that the system operated on an hourly basis.

When Hughes asked whether the server would have been backed up approximately an hour before Giddings removed it, the witness answered, “That would be correct. Yes.”

He further agreed that he knew the server had been backed up an hour before he removed it. Giddings also told the court that, after becoming aware of the bomb threat, he had enough time to back up the system.

Myers had asked him approximately 10 minutes after the threat was reported whether the election data could be backed up to a flash drive.

Giddings said he answered “yes” and that Myers then instructed him to carry out the backup.

He subsequently confirmed to Myers that he had backed up the information.

Asked by Hughes whether he informed Myers of the backup before removing the server, Giddings answered, “Yes, I did.”

Hughes then established that the flash drive containing the backup was handed to Myers before Giddings removed the server.

The Attorney put it to Giddings that, by then, he knew the physical server was not the only record of the election data.

The witness agreed.

Hughes nevertheless questioned why Giddings took the server despite having a backed-up copy and despite Myers’ instructions.

The server was subsequently placed in Giddings’ vehicle and taken to the muster point on High Street, where it remained for approximately two and a half hours.

Giddings acknowledged that he did not tell Myers where he had placed the server.

He also said he did not inform Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield.

He did, however, tell his deputy, Khalid Baksh, that he had removed the server and placed it in his vehicle.

When Hughes asked why he had not informed Myers, Giddings initially said he could not recall.

Pressed further, he told the court, “I can’t recall the reasons for that decision.”

Hughes suggested to the witness that his decision not to inform Myers was more serious than simply failing to communicate with her.

Giddings maintained that his concern at the time was the protection of the server and the information it contained.

The court also heard that no audit was, to Giddings’ knowledge, conducted on the server after it was returned to GECOM to determine whether any data had been altered.

Asked whether an audit had been conducted, Giddings replied, “To my knowledge, none.”

Giddings also acknowledged that Myers later called him while he was at the muster point and instructed him to return the server to the tabulation centre.

Hughes put it directly to him: “You defied her a second time.”

Giddings answered, “Yes.”

Hughes later summarised his position by telling Giddings that Myers had instructed him not to remove the server, had subsequently instructed him to return it, and had repeated that instruction after he raised questions about whether the building was safe.

Giddings ultimately agreed that he understood Myers was concerned about the server being in his possession in his vehicle.

Asked whether he got “the very clear and distinct impression” that Myers was concerned about GECOM’s server being in his car, Giddings answered “Yes.”

The server evidence follows Giddings’ earlier testimony about discrepancies in the 2020 election figures.

Giddings had previously testified that the 2020 national recount resulted in an approximately 19,000-vote decrease in the tally for A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) in Region Four, while the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) recorded an increase of about 11,000 votes.

The trial continues on Thursday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.

Those on trial include Lowenfield, Myers, former Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, former A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) Minister Volda Lawrence and former APNU/AFC Chief Scrutineer Carol Smith-Joseph.

The other accused are former GECOM employees Enrique Livan, Sheffern February, Michelle Miller and Denise Bobb-Cummings.

The prosecution alleged that the nine accused conspired to manipulate the tabulation of votes in Region Four and ultimately declare a false result in favour of the APNU/AFC.

It further alleged that the accused inflated the coalition’s votes, reduced those of the PPP/C and departed from the prescribed process for ascertaining the results.