Opposition-appointed members of GECOM yesterday charged that late changes were made to the list of polling places by the Chief Election Officer (CEO) without their knowledge, adding to concerns raised by the PPP that its supporters could be disadvantaged on polling day.
In a statement yesterday Sase Gunraj, Bibi Shadick and Robeson Benn said that they had been given a list of polling stations in the middle of January by CEO Keith Lowenfield that they deemed to be acceptable only to find out that a new list on February 20 had major changes including the eliminating of many private residences as polling places.
Lowenfield could not be contacted yesterday for comment.
The three commissioners said that in late January, 2020, they received from Lowenfield, in soft and hard copy, a list of Polling Stations countrywide together with extractions listing private residences and other buildings to be used as Polling Stations for the 2020 General and Regional Elections.
“We shared this information with the PPP/C for scrutiny and comments. That list was acceptable so we asked for no changes to be made.
“Lo and behold, two weeks ago, when GECOM put the information online for electors to check for their names and Polling Stations, and we received by e-mail on February 20, 2020, a list of Polling Stations which reflects the online information, there were no longer any Polling Places located in private residences anywhere on the East Coast Demerara. The same does not apply for other areas in Georgetown where the private residences are retained as per the January 2020 lists”, the three commissioners said.
They said that in an area like Foulis on the East Coast Demerara where in January 2020 nine private residences were listed together with one public place, “there are now no private residences! All those Polling Stations are now to be located in tents on the Line Top and a playfield!”
They added that Mon Repos, a huge housing community, had listed on the January list, seven private and seven public places, for polling but now there are only two Polling Places, Mon Repos Nursery and Primary Schools, both in the same location.
The trio said that Good Hope, another large housing area had on the January listthree private and two public places; it now has provision for two tents and one public place – that being a Nursery School which is a relatively small flat building.
“It is apposite to note that most of the affected communities are predominantly PPP/C areas, and that political party is not unreasonably protesting the unilateral changes which were made without any consultation with us.
“This decision was made by the CEO in his own deliberate judgement, and for him to now claim that it was the Commission’s decision not to use any private residences, is totally false. No such decision was made by the Commission between the date we received the January, 2020 list and the publication of the lists in February, 2020”.
The three commissioners said that this is reminiscent of the same CEO unilaterally issuing an Order under the hand of the Chairman, changing a decision of the Commission with respect to the duration of the Claims and Objections period from 35 to first 49 and then 42 days.
“We reject the unilateral changes made by the CEO and his Secretariat, to the Lists of Polling Places and demand that the January 2020 Listings be used countrywide. Nothing less will do”, Gunraj, Shadick and Benn said.
Earlier in the day, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) stepped up its protest over the polling stations changes by dispatching a letter to GECOM Chair Justice (rtd) Claudette Singh appealing for action. The party said it had done this as it had gotten no satisfaction from Lowenfield.
Frustrate voters
In a letter of Saturday’s date, the PPP’s Assistant Election Agent, Anil Nandlall wrote to GECOM Chair Justice Singh saying that the “PPP/ C is deeply disturbed by the recent decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to reduce the number of Polling Places, especially in PPP strongholds. We consider this latest development as yet another attempt by GECOM to frustrate voters, suppress and hinder voting and create possible confusion on Elections Day. We note your res-ponse that GECOM is implementing a Carter Center recommendation in its decision to reduce the
number of Private Residences used as Polling Stations and to rely more on Public Buildings.
“However, we intend to illustrate in this letter that this decision is being implemented inequitably, discriminatorily and unfairly. It is inconceivable that The Carter Center would have recommended such a twisted recommendation”, Nandlall wrote.
Noting the late receipt of the list of polling places in February, Nandlall said that he and Election Agent Zulfikar Mustapha made a number of objections and proposals and met with Lowenfield to express them.
“At that meeting, we explained in great details, the unnecessary hardships, inconveniences and confusion, which this decision will cause on Elections day. A commitment was given by Mr. Lowenfield to consider our proposals with a view of making the necessary adjustments. To our utter disappointment all, except one (1) of our proposals, were rejected by Mr. Lowenfield, without any proper, or any proper reason or explanation.
“As you are aware, GECOM proposes to use 2,339 Polling Stations in 2020, a mere increase of forty (40) Polling Stations, in comparison to the two thousand, two hundred and ninety nine (2, 299) Polling Stations used in 2015, even though there is a significant increase of almost ninety thousand (90,000) electors in 2020, when compared to 2015. This inadequate number of Polling Stations will result in voters standing in line for hours to exercise their franchise, while some maybe be prevented all together from voting. The cumulative effect will amount, at a minimum, to an undue fetter imposed upon the rights of the Guyanese voters to exercise their franchise freely and at worse, will lead to an absolute deprivation of many electorates’ democratic right to vote, let alone, to do so in a comfortable manner and in an accommodating environment”, Nandlall argued.
He added “Most fundamentally, the decision to reduce the use of Private Residences is being applied discriminatorily, inequitably and unfairly by GECOM, since there are many Private Residences, which will be used in Georgetown and along the East Bank of Demerara, as Polling Stations”.
In the document he supplied to Singh, Nandlall identified several examples:
I. Golden Grove (Samantha Point/Kaneville), East Bank Demerara, a comparatively small community, is scheduled to have six Private Residences as Polling Places, where less than two thousand electors are scheduled to vote;
II. Guyhoc Park, Greater Georgetown, a comparatively small community, is scheduled to have seven Private Residences as Polling Places, where approximately two thousand, five hundred electors are scheduled to vote;
III. North Ruimveldt, Greater Georgetown, a comparatively small community, is scheduled to have eight (8) Private Residences as Polling Places, where approximately two thousand, two hundred (2,200) electors are scheduled to vote.
It is not without significance that all of the aforementioned communities are A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) strongholds, Nandlall said.
He then ranged these examples against those of PPP/C strongholds as adverted to by the three opposition-nominated GECOM commissioners.
He said that on the East Coast of Demerara, there has been a complete elimination of the use of Private Residences, except in a singular instance, where a Private Residence is scheduled to be used at Joe Hook, the very last village, up the Mahaica River.
He added that because of their historical evolution, certain villages have more Public Buildings than others. “Therefore, villages with a greater number of Public Buildings enjoy a higher number of Polling Places, thereby conferring upon voters in those communities’ easier access to Polling Places than other communities with less Public Buildings”.
Nandlall said “I have only highlighted a few areas on the East Coast of Demerara plagued with the problems identified. These examples are certainly not exhaustive. In fact, from reports I have received, it appears to be a common thread running through PPP/C stronghold communities, countrywide”.
He added: “There is simply no rational explanation for corralling thousands of electors, to vote in tents, in open spaces, and in some instance, outside of their communities, where persons will have to line up for hours in the blazing sun or rain and in some cases in hostile environments, simply to exercise their democratic right to vote.
“In communities identified in 3, 4 and 5 above, Private Residences have been used as Polling Places in previous elections, without a singular complaint of any irregularity.
He said it is “extraordinarily difficult” for him to conclude that there is no sinister design, which has brought about this absolutely lop-sided distribution of Polling Places.
“I feel compelled to remind you that GECOM has a constitutional duty enjoined by Article 162 of the Constitution, to always act with” …impartiality, fairness and in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution …
“Additionally, it is a sacrosanct responsibility of GECOM to do all that is necessary and expedient to create a hospitable environment, which fosters and conduces smooth and free voting and not to impose undue fetter, impediments and hindrances that may frustrate rather than facilitate voting. Anything short will amount to an abdication of the constitutional role and sacred duty, which the law devolves upon GECOM”, Nandlall said.
He then requested that GECOM review its position and grant the request, already made that as far as possible, the Polling Places used in the 11th May 2015 National and Regional Elections, be used in the 2nd March 2020 National and Regional Elections.
