A contentious election law amendment fixing a system for payment of scrutineers was passed last evening with major division among the opposition parties.
Both the governing PPP/C and main opposition PNCR-1G supported the passage of the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill 2009, despite protests by AFC and GAP-ROAR over its failure to adequately give effect to a court ruling that funds for scrutineering activities by the opposition parliamentary parties be allocated on the basis of the number of seats they hold. An amendment proposed by the two small parties was defeated by the PPP/C and the PNCR-1G, which both voted against it before the Bill was taken through the final stages in the National Assembly. During the debate on the Bill, AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan likened the legislation to a tactic once employed by Forbes Burnham’s PNC government, and he accused the two large parties of collaborating to shut out the small parties-a charge that PNCR leader Robert Corbin vehemently denied. “That is the incestuousness when it comes to public finance in relation to them,” Ramjattan charged.
The Bill seeks to amend Section 8 (1) of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act of 2000 by inserting a new subsection that stipulates that the Opposition Leader, after meaningful consultation with other opposition parties in the National Assembly, shall submit the list of scrutineers of the combined opposition to be remunerated. In this vein, it seeks to give effect to a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal, upholding a decision by High Court Judge Jainarine Singh Jr that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) should have allocated monies to the opposition parliamentary parties for scrutineering activities on the basis of the number of seats they held, and not exclusively grant the main opposition party a lump sum for last year’s national house-to-house-registration exercise. The ruling was in the favour of the AFC and GAP-ROAR, which filed a suit challenging an allocation to the PNCR as the combined opposition. AFC MP David Patterson and GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin tabled an amendment seeking to have the scheme for payment be determined “on the basis of proportionality” and to ensure that the list of scrutineers be “remunerated proportionately,” but it was voted down by the government and opposition during a division that was called.
Additionally, the Bill proposes a substitute proviso that states that scrutineers for the governing party and the combined opposition shall be paid remuneration, in accordance with an administrative scheme made by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) after it “is satisfied from supporting evidence that the scrutineer has satisfactorily performed his duties.” A minor amendment in the name of PNCR MP Amna Ally and seconded by Corbin-stipulating that “one scrutineer in each category of scrutineers, one in each registration division and one in any subdivision” appointed by the governing party and the combined opposition would be remunerated-was passed with the support of the government.
Attorney General Charles Ramson explained that the intent of the Bill is in the spirit of the judgment secured by AFC and GAP, whom he referred to as “mini minority parties” on the opposition benches. However, Ramson, who said he had great difficulty understanding how the judge arrived at his decision, made it clear that government sought to accommodate the judgement without embracing the “pro rata” formula for payment to scrutineers. Arguing that the judgement created more confusion than the original legislation contained, he said the Bill would “lend clarity” to what was intended and provide an administrative structure. He emphasised that parties do not receive money for not scrutineering, while saying the discretion with respect to payment would lie with GECOM and not the judge.
Ramjattan, however, decried the Bill, calling it a complete misrepresentation of the rulings by the courts, since it was not ensuring allocation on the basis of proportionality. He further added that the Bill proposed an arrangement much worse than what was in law to begin with, expressing scepticism about the Leader of the Opposition having to submit the list of scrutineers. He accused the government of seeking to reverse the judgement by enacting statute, recalling similar tactics by the Burnham government in the 1980s. “This is not in the spirit of the court of appeal decision at all,” he said. “It is a rule of thumb that when the PPP and the PNC come together… they want to ensure that there will be a sharing of this pie between themselves to the exclusion of the Alliance For Change,” he added later.
Meanwhile, Corbin supported the Bill, noting that it sought to regularise an arrangement that had been working very smoothly until last year. Saying the AFC had been providing misinformation, he sought to set the record straight on the issue of funds for scrutineering, noting that he had maintained his silence on the issue. He explained that there had been talks between the opposition parties in which the AFC had undertaken to submit a list of its representatives. However, it never materialised. While the AFC and GAP-ROAR pursued the issue in the court, to ensure there was sufficient representation the PNCR ensured that scrutineering vacancies were filled, Corbin said. “It is not a matter that can be settled by a court or by the elections commission,” he explained, “It involves political parties… collaborating and working out the logistics of what is in the best interests of everyone.”
Corbin also emphasised that the PNCR has always sought collaboration and meaningful consultation on all issues with the other parliamentary opposition parties. He, however, refused to support the AFC amendment, saying he found it difficult after having dealt with so much “bad faith” on the issue.
