The Amazon rainforests provide 20 percent of the planet’s oxygen and is home to an estimated one million indigenous people from some 500 tribes as well as three million species of plants and animals. In reference to the fires that are raging in these forests and posing a major threat to the ecosystem, and in the face of mounting international pressure, Brazilian President Bolsonaro authorized the military to make available 44,000 troops to help bring the fires under control. He also indicated that he has accepted an offer of support from Israel.
At the recently concluded G7 Summit, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States agreed to provide $20 million in aid to fight the fires. In Colombia, where forest fires are also raging, President Ivan Duque stated that he would seek a conservation pact with other Amazonian countries as well as with the United Nations. He asserted that ‘[w]e must understand the protection of our Mother Earth and our Amazon is a duty, a moral duty’.
Apart from Brazil, which recorded 83,300 forest fires so far this year as of 27 August, other countries in the Amazon region have seen a significant increase in the number of fires, notably Venezuela (26,600), Bolivia (19,100), Colombia (14,300) and Peru (6,400). Here in Guyana, there were 900 fires, representing a 143 percent increase over the corresponding period last year, which is the highest percentage increase among the countries in the region. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49433767). The Environmental Protection Agency expressed concern about the spill-over effects in the Rupununi savannahs while the Minister of Natural Resources gave the assurance that the Guyana Forestry Commission is monitoring the situation using an advanced satellite tracking system.
For today’s article, we continue to track developments since the 21 December 2018 vote of no confidence in the Government.
Election manifestos
An election manifesto is social contract between an elected government and the citizens of the country. It contains detailed plans for the delivery of public services if elected to office and enables the voters to choose which political party along with their candidates they would support. To date, three political parties have presented, in one form or another, their manifestos for the up-coming elections: A New and United Guyana (ANUG), the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP). We had discussed the manifestos of the first two in our columns of 21 January 2019 and 28 January 2019. The ruling coalition APNU+AFC is yet to present its manifesto. In our 14 January 2019 column, we had highlighted aspects of the ruling coalition’s 2015 manifesto to enable citizens to assess the extent to which the Government has fulfilled its campaign promises.
Last Tuesday, the LJP unveiled its election manifesto, with the main thrust being on public safety security coupled with the use of information technology. If elected to office, the newly formed political party proposes to undertake the following:
√ Set up an urgent task team to reform the safety and security agencies;
√ Appoint four temporary judges to clear the backlogof court cases;
√ Introduce a smart and integrated 5G-based surveil lance system to improve law enforcement and to tackle corruption chains and unexplained wealth;
√ Encourage greater emphasis on community-based policing;
√ Ensure streetlights are up and working to make communities safer;
√ Coordinate with regional and global security agencies to control the flow of guns;
√ Reduce the number of firearms in the hands of civilians by offering a six-month amnesty for illegal firearms as well as a buy-back programme in place;
√ Increase the size of the Guyana Police Force by appointing administrative staff to perform non-policing functions to enable police officers to focus on their primary role in maintaining law and order;
√ Improve the salaries and other benefits of the Police Force.
√ Equip police officers with smartphones and body-cams, outfit police cars with tablet computers and dash-cams, and expand the use of CCTV cameras in high traffic areas to enhance the Force’s detection rate and enforcement capability, including digitising all police processes;
√ Establish a Policing and Oversight Unit for police services with reporting relations to a non-partisan parliamentary committee;
√ Provide appropriate training and equipment for Police Services to enhance professionalism and objectivity in the Force’s work; and
√ Build comprehensive police infrastructure, including well-equipped police stations, to ensure efficient and effective law enforcement.
Results of GECOM’s last Tuesday’s meeting
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) met last Tuesday for a third time to decide on the way forward, following the Chief Justice’s ruling that:
- The house-to-house registration of voters is not illegal or unconstitutional;
- It is unconstitutional to remove the names of persons from the current list of voters unless the persons have died or have become ineligible; or to exclude the names of eligible persons who have not registered during the house-to-house registration; and
- The safeguards for removal of the names of persons pursuant to the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 must be strictly complied with.
Following Tuesday’s meeting, GECOM issued a media release in which it stated that the house-to-house registration exercise that began on 20 July 2019 would end on 31 August (last Saturday); and preparations are being made for holding elections within the shortest possible period of time. To give effect to this, GECOM has agreed to amend the Order issued by the former GECOM Chairman, to provide for the conclusion of the registration exercise on 31 August instead of 20 October. More importantly, GECOM has agreed to merge the data collected from registration exercise with the existing register of voters and to provide for an extensive period of claims and objections before arriving at the final list of voters to be used for the elections.
President Granger had indicated on several occasions that once he is advised on GECOM’s readiness to hold national and regional elections, he would dissolve Parliament and set a date for such elections. Considering that it would take some time for the merger of the two sets of data to take place, followed by an extended period of claims and objections, to arrive at a final list, GECOM is unlikely to be in a position at this point in time to advise the President on its readiness to hold elections.
GECOM has stated that it is cognizant of all that has transpired over the past months and has ‘an obligation to produce a credible Official List of Electors (OLE) in the first instance and ultimately credible elections within the shortest possible time’; it would continue to deliberate on matters of importance for the holding of elections; and the Secretariat would continue to implement a number of operational activities, in particular, training of polling day staff and procurement of non-sensitive materials.
Last week, we reported that the Attorney-General has filed an appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling on several grounds. One such ground is that the Judge breached the separation of powers doctrine by issuing an order instructing GECOM, an independent constitutional agency, not to remove from the National Register of Registrants (NRR), persons who are presently registered but who are not registered under the house-to-house registration. A second argument is that the Chief Justice failed to appreciate that pursuant to Article 159 (5) of the Constitution and Sections 6 and 9 of the NRA, GECOM has embarked on compiling a new NRR to replace the current register. In the light of GECOM’s decision to bring the house-to-house registration to a premature end and to merge the results with the existing voters’ register, it is unclear whether the Attorney-General will pursue the appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling.
Reaction from political parties
The opposition PPP has stated that the Commission’s decision was the only logical one that could have been made. It, however, expressed its disagreement over the proposed merging of the two sets of data, contending that, apart from being time-consuming, the exercise would result in duplication of names. According to the PPP, ‘the planned merger of data from the House-to-House Registration will not improve the quality or “credibility” of the database – rather, it will further contaminate the National Register of Registrants and cause further delays in the holding of elections’. The party felt that the results of claims and objections could achieve the same result in a shorter time period. In reference to the Chief Justice’s ruling, the PPP stated that nowhere was it was stated that that there should be a merger of the two sets of data.
Last Friday, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) issued a media release in which stated that it would continue to advocate for a credible list of electors; and it agreed with the statement by GECOM Chair that a credible list is critical to a fair and free election. The release further stated:
Guyanese need a voters’ list they can trust; to hold elections they can trust, to give them a government they can trust. This is central to our democracy and our future.
It is essential that we hold fair, free and credible elections and we cannot do so if the people of Guyana believe that the list is outdated and corrupted. The process that GECOM employs to sanitize the list must therefore take into consideration the concerns expressed.
The PNCR is pleased that the data gathered from the current house to house registration will be considered in the new list of electors. The PNCR will use the proposed extended claims and objections period to rigorously peruse and where necessary further sanitize the new list of electors.
Reaction from civil society
Chartered Accountant and Attorney-at-law Christopher Ram, who had challenged the constitutionality of the house-to-house registration exercise, echoed similar sentiments. He felt that there are enormous complications and difficulties if the two sets of data are merged and that ‘any variance affecting any single name, will require extensive further work. For example, in the case of a single individual, there could be several rejections: the order of a person’s full name, the spelling of any one of those names, addresses, fingerprints, etc.’ Mr. Ram contended that it is ‘unreasonable and wishful thinking to believe that any claims and objections exercise, no matter how extensive, would ferret such names’.
Following last Tuesday’s pronouncement by GECOM’s, the Private Sector Commission met with Commission and indicated that it would issue a media release on the outcome of the meeting.
Suggestions for addressing the concerns raised
On several occasions, the President had stated that the existing voters’ list is bloated by some 200,000, notwithstanding that it was the very list that was used to conduct local government elections late last year, which independent observers considered free and fair. On the other hand, the incomplete house-to-house registration exercise has so far produced a list of 270,000 names. The opposition party boycotted the exercise and declined to provide scrutineers to accompany the officials during their house-to-house visits.
We agree that the merging of these two lists as they are, would present enormous challenges in arriving at a ‘credible’ list, apart from the time it would take to do so. While we do not hold ourselves as experts in information technology, we offer the following suggestions as a means of addressing the concerns raised:
- Use the existing voters’ list as the primary document and the starting point;
- ‘Sanitize’ the existing voters’ list as far as possible by removing the names of persons who have died or otherwise disqualified;
- Compare the ‘sanitized’ list with the results of the house-to-house registration exercise;
- Strike out from the house-to-house registration list all names that appear on the ‘sanitized’ voters’ list;
- Merge the amended house-to-house registration list with the ‘sanitized’ list; and
- Undertake a comprehensive period of claims and objections to arrive at the final list of voters to be used for the elections.
The above approach, if agreed on, is likely to produce a more accurate voters’ list within a shorter timeframe, compared with the approach GECOM has decided to adopt. In this way, the Commission will be in a better position to advise the President on its readiness to hold elections which we believe can be held around mid-November.
