The People’s Progressive Party-nominated commissioners on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) are rejecting a claim by the Local Government Elections campaign manager for the Alliance For Change (AFC) David Patterson that they were responsible for the names of the nominators of party candidates being made public.
“At no time whatsoever has the issue regarding publication or rather posting of the submissions on Nomination Day by the Returning Officer come to the commission for discussion or otherwise prior to Nomination Day,” PPP-nominated commissioner Sase Gunraj told Stabroek News.
Responding to the claim made by Patterson at an AFC press conference on Thursday, Gunraj, an attorney, said, “In fact, the Local Government Elections Act Chapter 28:03 caters specifically for that to happen. It was not based on an insistence by any PPP-nominated commissioner or any other commissioner. It occurred as a matter of law.”
Contrary to Patterson’s claim that the list of nominators were not posted until the current process, Gunraj added, “It has occurred in the 2016 Local Government Elections, pursuant to the law. This is a public process.”
According to Section 44 (1) of the Local Authorities (Elections) Act, a list of candidates and a copy shall be handed over to the RO by the representative or deputy representative of the list and the RO shall forthwith cause a copy of the list to be posted in a conspicuous place outside of his office. Section 44(2) adds, “A list of candidates shall be in the prescribed form; and the submission shall bear the signature of each person submitting the same together with his name and the serial number of his identification card….”
Gunraj said he believed “that the rationale behind that specific piece of legislation is for the very reason that this is not a cloistered virtue.”
He added, “If you are placing candidates who are putting themselves on a list for election, the public has a right to know who those persons are. By that same token, if that candidates’ list is backed by a series of nominators, those nominators have to be made public.”
Continued attempts yesterday to get a response from GECOM officials were unsuccessful. Despite the PPP and the AFC trading accusations over violations of the electoral laws, the commission has thus far remained silent.
Gunraj added that while the AFC was making the issue “a thing about PPP-nominated commissioners,” all of the commissioners, save for one whom he did not see on Nomination Day, were visiting GECOM offices to observe the process. No one objected, he said, because the commissioners knew the law. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not because people do not know what the law says, means that it is unlawful. It is in the law,” he added.
On Patterson’s comments that identifying nominators was opening a can of worms as they could be subject to victimisation, Gunraj said, “The can of worms they were trying to keep concealed is perhaps all the skullduggery that happened in relation to people who claimed that they did not sign a list and their names appeared on it.”
The names of people who are dead, he said, “appeared on the list of nominators, on those very list of nominators, including Mr Patterson’s party.”
There are people who claimed they were duped into signing the lists as backers for various reasons, he said, including that they were signing up for better facilities in their village or they were signing up for jobs.
“It makes you wonder why they want this to be hidden, notwithstanding that section of the law,” he added.
On the issue of people making attempts to submit affidavits and appearing in person at the offices of ROs to have their names removed as either backers or as candidates, Gunraj also said those affidavits were still being rejected contrary to the law.
“The time has not yet passed, according to law, for someone, even if they legitimately signed up to be a candidate; they have that prerogative of withdrawal now, much less if they wish to withdraw or to have their names removed because it was clandestinely or unlawfully placed there. The time has not yet passed for that,” he said.
Gunraj added that if someone was duped or did not sign a list or their names ended up on a list of nominators, they must have that right to have their names removed.
“The will of an elector not only limits them to a vote, the will of an elector extends to them offering themselves for candidacy or a candidate on a list and their will extends as well for them being nominator. If the will of that elector is somewhat interfered with by being placed wrongfully on a list or by someone duping them to sign it, that is tampering with the will of the electorate. That should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form,” he further said.
Unfortunately, the legislation, Gunraj noted, does not provide any harsh penalties, such as banning of candidates and political parties found guilty of perpetrating such activities.
The PPP has claimed that many of its supporters in several of its strongholds were deceived into signing on as nominators for AFC candidates. A number of ROs have accepted sworn affidavits to have the names of many of the nominators removed from lists of candidates. Some ROs, the PPP said, have refused the affidavits.
