Yesterday’s meeting of the Guyana Elections Com-mission saw “tempers flare” as the commission’s Legal Officer, Excellence Dazzell tabled a personal opinion that disagrees that a new voter’s list is required.
This advice could be significant as if the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) rules for early elections the state of the list will be a critical element in the timetable. Dazzell’s advice would also be seen to run counter to the controversial move by the government-appointed commissioners to have house-to-house registration before general elections are held. The PPP-appointed commissioners are opposed to house-to-house registration.
“Based on (elections laws), the list must be updated bi-annually by adding persons who are now qualified to be registered, to that list, and those who are no longer qualified to be registered, to be taken off that list…,” Dazzell’s legal opinion, seen by Stabroek News states.
“I therefore advise that procedures be put in place to ensure the revision of the list, otherwise the Commission would be acting in defiance of the law and may prejudice any by-election that may become necessary,” the document ended.
The attorney quoted section 7. (1) of the Elections Amendment Act (2000) and the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Act of 2018 to justify her recommendation.
Section 7 (1) states, “Where there is an interval of more than six months after the qualifying date …. the Commissioner shall cause the official list of electors and non-resident electors’ roll to be revised , in accordance with procedure established by the Commission by regulations – (a) by adding thereto the names of persons who have or may become qualified electors for registration as after the said qualifying date and before the day appointed for the election; and (b) by deleting therefrom the names of persons who are registered as electors, but have ceased to be qualified to be so registered after the said qualifying date and before such date, being a date prior to the date appointed for the election, as may be specified by the Commission by notification in the Gazette.”
The Legal Officer’s actions in tabling the document without the permission of the full Elections Commission irked government commissioners with Desmond Trotman registering his disquiet, questioning her motives and calling for an inquiry.
“One of the things of concern to me, is what I believe is an act of deceit on the part of the Legal Officer, in relation to an opinion that she has offered. It had to do with a request from [PPP] Commissioner [Bibi] Shadick sometime ago about her offering her opinion on a matter. We have never agreed at the commission, that they should go forward. But suddenly yesterday, last night actually, I saw it for the first time there was some correspondence from her [Dazzell], which included a memo on this matter. And because, as far as I know, there was no agreement on that, I raised it today as a matter of concern. And I pointed out that the way in which it appeared before the commission had to do with some form of deceit by the legal officer,” Trotman told reporters yesterday as he exited GECOM’s headquarters at Kingston.
Attention
“So I have actually asked for an inquiry on how this matter came to attention. You see, one has to be concerned that this opinion she has offered, has to do with the fact that there is a challenge in the court on the house-to-house registration. Now she claims she had put together this opinion sometime in April. But every time we discuss this matter at the commission…she has never said she has an opinion in draft. So for me, the appearance of this opinion today lends to suspicions. And I do believe we require an investigation into that and maybe some other ways we should deal with this matter. This is an opinion on the state of the list. It is an opinion on the state of the list. The legal advisor is offering an opinion that Shadick requested on what to do now that the list has expired,” he added.
Sources told Stabroek News that the debate on the process of the tabling of the opinion saw “tempers flare” as some commissioners questioned the Legal Officer’s motive while others defended her.
Trotman said that he questioned the process of Dazzell giving her opinion as “any commissioner could request anything but for it to be acted upon by one of the staff members it has to be agreed on by the commission”.
“So I cannot request from the CEO (Chief Election Officer) information without first being agreed with by the Commissioners. This wasn’t done. This was not done and she is claiming, you know, she prepared a draft at some point in time, passed through the chairman (of GECOM, retired justice James Patterson). The chairman did say at some point he saw a draft but believed it was something that came from her own initiative. My argument to this is that the appearance of this document has nothing to do with her initiative. Because if it was, she would have notified us some time ago that there was this request and she had this draft but she hasn’t notified us,” he said.
“It gives me the impression that she is not responding to the Commission’s instruction but responded to a commissioner’s instruction. It appears like … there is a bias, it could be more than that. Well an investigation will reveal whether I am right or wrong. I have asked for it and the Chairman will make a decision. It is put to the Commissioner and he obviously will, at some point, sit and look at the rights and wrongs of this thing and then make a decision and bring it to the Commission. I am hoping that it can be done by next week,” he added.
Since the passage of the December 21 no confidence motion the meetings of the commission have been fraught with conflict. Shadick has recommended that meetings be suspended until the CCJ has ruled on the legality of the Motion.
Shadick who had walked out following attempts to discuss house-to-house registration had told Stabroek News that she will continue the action for as long as the commission attempts to discuss the issue.
“Since March 26th, when all we did was go through minutes of the three meetings prior, we have discussed nothing because they have been unable to present a plan for the holding of elections without house-to-house… as long as GECOM proposes to discuss house-to-house registration, I will continue to walk out. House-to-house registration is not constitutional… it is not the law, Continuous registration is law,” Shadick contended.
