Things like rule of law, democracy and you know, competence and facts; those things are not partisan, but they also don’t happen automatically. There has to be citizens who insist on it and participate to make sure it happens. Democracy is a garden that has to be tended.
President Barack Obama
This is our ninth article on the above subject in which we continue to track developments since the 21 December 2018 vote of no confidence in the Govern-ment. By Articles 106(6) and 106(7) of the Constitution, the President and the Cabinet are required to resign, and elections held within three months from that date. However, the validity of the vote is being challenged on two grounds: 33 Members of Parliament (MPs) out of 65 does not constitute a majority of MPs; and the vote of one MP was invalid by virtue of the person holding dual citizenship. It has been reported that at least five other MPs hold dual citizenship and participated in the no confidence vote. On 31 January 2019, the Chief Justice upheld the ruling of the Speaker that the vote of no confidence was validly carried. The matter is currently before the Court of Appeal.
Today marks the 80th day since the event of 21 December 2018, and with ten days to go before the deadline for holding elections expires, citizens are at a loss to learn when such elections will take place.
Gridlock at GECOM
We had stated several times over that GECOM should have been in a state of readiness to hold elections within three months, especially in view of the configuration of the Assembly where it takes only one vote from the Government’s side to team up with the Opposition to bring down the Government. In fact, it was reported that immediately after the vote of no confidence, GECOM staff met and discussed the possibility holding such elections.
For a while, the Commission has found itself in a state of paralysis as to how to proceed, especially in view of the Government’s refusal to accept the ruling of the Speaker and subsequently that of the Chief Justice. The Government-nominated Commissioners have since insisted on conducting house-to-house registration of voters before elections are held while the Opposition-nominated Commissioners want elections to be within the three-month period prescribed by the Constitution. In order to break the gridlock, the Chairman supported the position taken by the former group. Suffice it to state that house-to-house registration will take at least nine months and will have the effect of negating the effects of the no confidence vote, a position which the Government appears to be comfortable with.
Constitutionally, GECOM is an independent agency where in the exercise of its functions, it is under the direction and control of no person or authority. Its affairs are administered by six Commissioners and a Chairman, all of whom are appointed by the President: three based on the President’s own deliberation judgment; and three based on the advice of the Opposition Leader after due consultations with the non-government political parties represented in the Assembly. The Chairman is appointed from ‘a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President’ submitted by the Opposition Leader and after consultation with the non-government parties represented in the Assembly. He/she must be a sitting judge, a former judge or any other fit and proper person. If the Opposition Leader fails to submit such a list, the President has the authority to appoint the Chairman from among sitting or former judges.
The Opposition Leader had submitted three lists on separate occasions. However, they contained the names of some persons who had close connection or association with the Opposition political party and its leadership. As a result, the President disregarded the Opposition Leader’s submissions and unilaterally appointed the current Chairman. This action generated intense debate as to the President’s motive, some arguing that the President had already decided on his choice of Chairman and was merely going through a cosmetic exercise with the Opposition Leader. Others have pointed out that, while each of the lists contained some good names from which the President could have made the choice, the Opposition Leader’s submission of contaminated lists was a significant blunder that played into the hands of the President. It is no wonder that the court has ruled that the President’s action was not unconstitutional. The matter is pending in an appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
As regards the appointment of the Commissioners, how does one explain the presence of two former Ministers of the previous Administration? Given this, and perhaps other considerations, can we really argue a case that GECOM is completely independent of the political process, which is the intention of the above constitutional requirement?
GECOM is now in a state of gridlock as regards whether the elections could be held using the current voters’ list, amended as appropriate during a period or claims and objections; or whether a fresh voters’ list should be prepared following a house-to-house registration of voters. In the case of the former, GECOM is on record as having stated that elections could be held within 150 days while the compilation of a new list is likely to take at least nine months.
The three Opposition-nominated Commissioners staged a walk-out on two occasions over the decision to place advertisements to fill the positions of Assistant Registration Officer and Enumerator to assist in the conduct house-to-house registration. They are insisting that the Commission did not vote to conduct house-to-house registration and are calling for the withdrawal of the advertisements. On the other hand, according to GECOM’s Public Relations Officer, the Commission had voted to inform the President that it was not in a position to hold elections within the timeframe prescribed by Article 106(7) of the Constitution. As a result, it would continue with its work plan for 2019 which involves the conduct of house-to-house registration of voters. The current voters’ list expires on 30 April 2019.
President’s Invitation and Opposition Leader’s Response
Last week, we reported that the President had extended an invitation to the Opposition Leader for consultations regarding: (i) the National Assembly’s constitutional role in the present situation; and (ii) GECOM’s readiness and requirement for funding to enable it to conduct general and regional elections. The Opposition Leader did not initially respond but indicated at a media briefing that he would not participate in the meeting unless a date for the elections is proposed. He did, however, respond on 4 March 2019 accepting the invitation. Referring to the supremacy of the Constitution, he stated that the proposed meeting must focus on ensuring that Articles 106)6) and 106(7) are not violated in terms of holding elections within three months of the passing of the vote of no confidence in the Government.
The Opposition Leader went on to list the following proposals for discussion with the President:
(a) The date for the General and Regional Elections to be before 30 April 2019;
(b) No new contracts to be awarded by the State, including Regional Democratic
Councils and State-owned corporations, after 21 March 2019;
(c) No new agreements to be entered into that bind the Government, including
loans, grants, land leases and the like, after 21 March 2019;
(d) No abuse of State resources for partisan activities/purposes to take place;
and
(e) Access to State-owned media to be for all the contesting political parties.
The Opposition Leader further indicated that if the above proposals are acceptable, the Opposition would lend support to secure the votes of two-thirds of all the elected MPs to extend the 21 March 2019 deadline for holding elections. The following day, the Ministry of the Presidency responded to the Opposition Leader’s letter indicating that the President was willing to meet with him to discuss his proposals.
Outcome of the Meeting
The meeting took place as scheduled. However, according to the Opposition Leader, the outcome was not fruitful in that the deliberations did not get past the first item on the agenda which was to agree on a date for the elections. He stated that having the date before 30 April is a reasonable position, but the President was not prepared to consider a date unless GECOM indicates its readiness. The Opposition Leader stated that he suggested that the President engages GECOM after which another meeting could be held but not after 21 March 2019, the outer date for the holding of elections.
The following day, the Ministry of the Presidency released a statement from the President indicating that the engagement with the Opposition Leader was very fruitful and that the approach was positive to bring about a resolution of the problem. He insisted that only GECOM, as an independent agency, could determine when the elections can be held, without interference or intrusion from the President, the Executive or any person or agency. In this regard, he stated that he had written the Chairman of GECOM for consultations with a view to having credible elections within the shortest period of time; and the Opposition Leader has agreed to meet again. The President assured Guyanese that there is no crisis at the moment. A subsequent media release indicated that a meeting with GECOM was scheduled for 8 March 2019.
Meeting with GECOM
The meeting between the President and GECOM did take place as scheduled. However, as in the case of his meeting with the Opposition Leader, there was no fruitful outcome, as the Commissioners stuck to their entrenched positions with no compromise in sight.
GECOM had successfully run off the local government elections less than four months ago using the existing voters’ list. It is now claiming that the list cannot be used because it is highly bloated with the names of persons who have migrated or have died. No one is denying that this may be so, but there are established mechanisms to prevent voter fraud arising out of having such names on the list. Besides, the list could be sanitized as far as possible through a period of claims and objections. These considerations apart, as of 21 March 2019 (the outer deadline for holding elections) the list remains valid. However, the Opposition Leader’s insistence that elections should be held before 30 April 2019 is an unrealistic position to take. The water is already under the bridge, and he could have held the Commission to its word that it could run off a credible election within 150 days. The Opposition Leader could have then proposed a date in July 2019 for the elections. Had he done so, the outcome of the meeting might have been different.
Conclusion
All is not lost, and the three parties involved – the President, the Opposition Leader and GECOM – in all sincerity and with the public interest at heart, should have a face-to-face meeting in a final attempt to agree on a position as to the way forward. It is either we have elections in July 2019, or after house-to-house registration of voters which in all probability will take us to year-end or possibly later. Once a decision is made, then the National Assembly can convene to approve of an extension of the 21 March deadline. All of this will have to take place within the next ten days. If not, there will be a constitutional crisis and a significant setback to our system of democracy, governance and rule of law.
Finally, the Opposition Leader needs to temper his assertiveness and aggression as well as the tone of his public utterances if he is to wring out concessions from the President.
