Dear Editor,
Here I am after this week’s statutory meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission giving you my usual update. The meeting was held on Wednesday since Tuesday was a national holiday again.
Fellow Guyanese, it seems as if my updates are really negatively affecting the Chairman, as today he was moved to assert that those of us on ‘our side’ of the table did not deserve any common courtesy from him, since every week one of ‘our’ Commissioners ‘spills the very guts’ of GECOM’s meetings in the press!! Even Commissioner Alexander was moved to point out that the Commissioner in question (me) had at least had the ‘common courtesy’ to inform the meeting of her intention to issue statements to the press after every meeting!
This outburst by the Chairman happened after Commissioner Gunraj had accused the Chairman of not having the common courtesy of informing the meeting last Thursday, that he had called a Press Conference for the next day, even during the long discussion about GECOM’s interaction with the press and the Chairman had heard suggestions that targeted press releases would better serve our purpose rather than a Press Conference where the message can get lost in answers to questions from reporters which detracted from the main reason for the interaction. The Chairman was in rare form asserting his right to call any press Conference without informing any Commis-sioner, at which Commissioner Benn was moved to point out that the Chairman then, could not claim to be speaking on behalf of the Commission since he had not even informed, much less discussed with Commissioners the fact of the press engagement, never mind the reason for it. Good theatre it was today!
The matter of the Mabaruma LGE results again came up. I told the meeting that I had been informed that two of GECOM’s officials, a Mr Allen and a Mr Clarke, had travelled to Mabaruma to investigate the issue of proxies about which we spoke last week, and that the two officers had spent much of their time interacting with APNU activists and supporters in a private meeting at the Town Hall and that they were also transported by an APNU candidate to Aruka Mouth and Smith Creek. My point was that GECOM’s officials should have acted in a manner precluding any perception of bias, especially since the investigation was being done at the instance of complaints made by the APNU.
Later in the meeting, the DCEO in the absence of the CEO who did not attend today’s meeting, reported orally about the investigation by Messrs Clarke and Allen which had found that procedures for the approval of proxies had been breached and that the only answer the RO, who approves all proxy applications, could give is that he was trying to help. My own view on this was that the RO should then face sanctions, but to my consternation, the DCEO then asked that the Commission consider the question of whether the results of the Mabaruma elections should be published!
This, to my mind was such a preposterous question from the DCEO! The elections had been held and the final results had been declared by the Returning Officer and now here is the DCEO suggesting that the results of an investigation should be used to change or amend before publication, the declared final results!
I am amazed that the DCEO needed to be told by me, that when the RO declared the results he was functus officio and that results of an election can only be challenged in a Court of Law by way of an elections petition!
I am now wondering if the DCEO genuinely did not know this, because she had no previous experience running any election.
Folks, please compare this action on the part of GECOM regarding an APNU complaint in Mabaruma, against several complaints by individuals and the PPP/C in Whim, Corriverton and elsewhere. In the face of no investigations into their complaints, some complainants resorted to a Court action which GECOM stoutly defended to the tune of over $3 million. GECOM did not see it fit to investigate any complaint other one made by the APNU on an issue which might not even have had any effect on the final results. Talk about duplicity!!
Prior to the meeting I read of allegations being made in Lethem, but no one brought up that issue today. Perhaps we will hear more of that later.
The DCEO had no answers for several matters arising out of the minutes concerning tasks which should have been performed by the CEO. For instance, at last week’s meeting, the CEO had given an undertaking to provide commissioners with scanned copies of the declaration of results made by each of the eighty Returning Officers. I had asked for these, because I wanted to compare the ‘preliminary results’ to the actual declarations. The numbers announced by the PRO and published in various sections of the press under the heading of LGE Results, are just statistics showing voter turnout! Why not publish the actual numbers of votes cast for each political party? That is what can properly be called results instead of saying that a total of 208,534 or 36% of the total registered electors voted. The electorate wants results, not statistics. Publication of the real results will publicly reveal the current mood of the electorate.
As I have had to say before, getting any information from GECOM is akin to pulling teeth. A painful process!! But I am prepared to persevere and hope that one day things will get better at GECOM. So long for now, until next week folks.
Bibi Safora Shadick
Commissioner – GECOM
