Opposition-nominated Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Com-missioner Bibi Shadick has complained that getting information about the Elections Commission Secretariat’s activities is “akin to pulling teeth” and if the right questions are not asked, much remains hidden.
“Preparing for a GECOM meeting is like preparing for battle with an army which is very intractable…,” Shadick said in a statement last Wednesday.
According to her, the minutes of the previous meeting “is invariably unavailable before Mon-day evening and more often than not, reads like fiction. I sometimes wonder if I was even present.”
GECOM’s statutory meetings are held on Tuesdays. Shadick said that she is prepared to speak out on what happens at the weekly meetings as a result of the situation.
Government-nominated Commissioner Desmond Trotman, however, has accused Shadick of misrepresenting the facts. “There are lots of attempt[s] to run the Commission from outside of the Commission. They believe they can run the Commission from Freedom House. They cannot,” he said, referring to PPP headquarters. Trotman promised a fuller response later and said he is prepared to correct any misrepresentations. “Following each meeting of the Commission, once there is a misrepresentation of what took place, I will be free, as would any other commissioner, to speak to the press on those matters.”
Opposition-nominated commissioners Robeson Benn and Shadick, he charged, “believe that every time a decision is made that does not suit them, they ought to make a statement, and in the process misrepresent what actually took place. That is what is happening.”
In her statement, Shadick said at Tuesday’s meeting, she initiated a discussion on voter education and the company GECOM had engaged for this purpose. Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, she said, at first claimed ignorance then admitted “he had instructed that this be done especially for hinterland and far-flung areas, but that he had no knowledge if that had been done.”
Reminded that such issues had to first be brought to the Commission’s finance sub-committee, Shadick claimed that Lowenfield told the meeting that once the Finance Ministry gave the accounting officer the approval to expend funds for such a purpose, GECOM’s Secretariat was not required to bring the issue before the subcommittee or the Commission.
According to Shadick, government-nominated commissioner Vincent Alexander appeared to agree with Lowenfield that expenditure over or under certain amounts did not need the Commission’s approval, but admitted that the information should be brought to the Commission.
Further, Shadick claimed that the CEO at first refused to share the lists of duties and responsibilities of the returning officers (ROs) and presiding officers until he was reminded of the many infractions ROs made on Nomination Day, September 21. She said Lowenfield agreed to share the draft lists for any input, a brief of the voter education exercise, and provide the name of the public relations firm hired.
Court matter
On the non-resolution of instances of withdrawals by candidates and/or nominators in specific Local Authority Areas contesting the November 12 Local Government Elections, Shadick said, after persistent questioning by the Opposition-nominated commissioners, “it was admitted that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel had not even been contacted by the Chairman to give a legal interpretation of Section 53 of Chapter 28:03.”
GECOM Chairman, Justice (Rtd) James Patterson, she said, agreed at Benn’s insistence that he would contact the Attorney General to solicit a legal interpretation after she “pointed out that the section dealt with the withdrawal of a candidate and the Court matter deals with the withdrawal of nominators.”
Trotman’s position on the matter, according to Shadick, is that as a court matter has been filed, there was no need for any legal interpretation.
On the withdrawal of candidates by affidavits, Trotman said, Shadick’s position was that the affidavits were legal documents and had to be obeyed and he said “we could only know if they were legal documents if they could stand up to scrutiny.”
That means, he said, “There should be an examination of each person who swore to those affidavits in court to see if they were in fact coerced or they voluntarily said they gave it. I continue to believe that because the matter is engaging the court’s attention, GECOM should allow the court to proceed with and make a decision on the matter.”
On the printing of the ballots, Shadick said it “is continuing as if the issue of resolving the irregularities and non-withdrawals of candidates and backers had never even been raised at the level of the Commission.”
On Lowenfield’s statement that Shafraz Beekham, the applicant in the Berbice court matter was not listed on the list of nominators on any list, Shadick said, “even though shown a photocopy of the list which was posted on nomination day, both he and the DCEO, claim that the list had been corrected and the Chairman and the CEO refused to share with me the list in their possession.”
She claimed a list without Beekham’s name was manufactured to suit Lowenfield’s statement and his lawyer can then claim that Beekham has no locus standi to bring the matter.
“How this was done is anybody’s guess but I am sure that it was done after the matter was filed and served,” Shadick said.
While the Opposition was prepared to take the matter as far as the Caribbean Court of Justice, Trotman said, he was sure Government is prepared to go as far.
Lawyers
On the lawyer representing Lowenfield, Shadick said, the commission was told that the legal officer was “too junior for the purpose” and Patterson chose attorney-at-law Teni Housty to represent the CEO without referring to the Commission, and without mentioning the costs for representation. Stabroek News was unable to contact Lowenfield by phone on the matter.
For the judicial review matter she filed, Shadick said, attorney-at-law Roysdale Forde was retained to represent GECOM based on Patterson’s advice and approval. An invoice for $2 million plus value added tax as a deposit on fees, has been submitted.
“These issues are not brought to the meeting for any discussion and are only discovered after many searching questions from our side of the table,” she claimed.
The legal officer, who Patterson chose to attend two workshops in the United Kingdom days after she assumed duty, Shadick claimed, cost over $4 million. According to her, the legal officer was not at Tuesday’s meeting to take minutes even though Patterson said she was back.
Shadick further alleged that Patterson refused to say if he has a contract of employment setting out his terms of reference and benefits as Chairman. She claimed that Trotman has insisted that Patterson’s instrument of appointment gives him the authority he needs to make unilateral decisions without reference to the Commission.
Trotman, she said, advised the Chairman not to even think about resigning as he had told the press almost three weeks ago and assured him that as far as he was concerned, the chairman was doing a fantastic job.
Trotman said he made that statement after observing that Patterson had said at the recent GECOM press conference that he was not averse to considering resignation from the Commission and that “I was advising him, as a member of the Commission I believe that according to the court, he was properly appointed and that he should allow the entire court process to evolve before he considers going in that direction. The chairman offered no response.”
On Shadick and Benn’s comments that he had become Patterson’s advisor, Trotman said, “I said to both of them that there had been numerous occasions when it was that they publicly and within the Commission attempted to denigrate the chairman and I will not sit on the Commission and allow that to continue. If they felt I was defending the chairman I have no apologies to make. I am doing just that. The chairman’s appointment has to so far been ruled by the court to be above board and a second ruling is coming soon.”
