Dear Editor,
Close to 6 weeks after the 2nd March 2020 General and Regional Elections in Guyana, the world, in utter bewilderment, watches on, as a cabal, clutching illegally onto the reins of Government, continues to execute their joint enterprise with three Commissioners and a grouping within the GECOM Secretariat, to thwart the democratic process and prevent the declaration of the true results of those elections.
After an avalanche of national and international condemnations, threats of sanctions from powerful quarters, the intervention of an unprecedented five Prime Ministers from the Region and a series of adverse Court rulings from various rungs of the judicial ladder, a decision was finally made on 15th March 2020, to conduct a recount of the ballots cast on 2nd March. As the recount was about to begin and clearly recognizing the consequences which will flow therefrom, they balked, running to Court, using the flimsy disguise of an ordinary citizen, to challenge the legality of an arrangement which their Leader requested and signed as part of a CARICOM initiative.
Like their every endeavour in this fraudulent design, incompetence permeated the litigation. In the end, they lost. They would lose even greater when this litigation journeys to its final destination. By the time this article is read, we would be close to a month after that unanimous decision was made for the recount to be done. But we are no closer to its commencement. As I write, the modalities of its execution continue to be the subject of GECOM’s deliberations. Of course, the Government Commissioners continue to do everything possible to frustrate and delay the recount. In this regard, Commissioner Vincent Alexander, in essence, wants the decision to do a recount altered, to do an audit, instead. This must be fiercely resisted. No one ever called for an audit and no decision was ever made to do an audit. It is not provided for in the law and will only delay the process further.
These three Commissioners always enjoy complicity from the Chief Election Officer. It has always been so and it will not change now. In trying to understand how this Commission deliberates and in interpreting some of its postures in legal proceedings filed, I get the impression that there is a pervading view in the Commission that the Chief Election Officer enjoys some degree of autonomy vis a vis the Commission. For example, the Chief Election Officer, without even consulting the Commission, retains his own lawyers and gives these lawyers instructions which collide violently with decisions and positions of the Commission. The Chief Election Officer is subject to the Commission both in and out of Court. Section 18 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2000, speaks conclusively on this issue:
“S.(18) The Chief Election Officer and the Commissioner of Registration shall notwithstanding anything in any written law be subject to the direction of the Commission.”
Section 17 of the said Act also vests in the Commission, responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Secretariat and for the appointment and disappointment of all staff of the Secretariat. So there cannot be any doubt that the Commission is in charge of the Secretariat and every staff of the Secretariat, including, the Chief Elections Officer.
Earlier this week, Mr. Lowenfield was tasked with the responsibility of preparing a document reflecting the modus operandi of the impending recount. True to form, Mr. Lowenfield produces a document which is completely consistent with the political agenda of the Congress Place cabal: a proposal that would keep the cabal in Government for another six months, while incorporating Alexander’s scheme for an audit. The document is replete with materials and bases to create the platform for a legal challenge to be launched against the recount when it is convenient to the political masterminds to do so. Unfortunately, this stratagem and contrivance of theirs are too well known by now.
They did it in 1997, when they supported the use of an ID card as a qualification to vote and then challenged the 1997 elections on this very ground. They installed Charrandass in Parliament, knowing fully well that he was a dual citizen and then challenged the No Confidence Motion on this very basis. Then more recently, David Granger, entered into an agreement to do a recount, at the level of CARICOM, and signed an Aide Memoire in relation thereto, then challenges its constitutionality in the Courts. These people simply cannot be trusted.
It is for this reason that the PPP Commissioners put forward separate proposals. In so doing, we followed the law as closely as possible, very wary of a possible litigious entrapment. A recount is a legal process and cannot be the subject of political compromise. If we dare deviate from the law, no doubt they would rush to Court to knock it down. It is for this reason that our proposals incorporate the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act. Sections 87 and 89 set out the process how a recount is done and the procedure on conclusion of the recount. The legislation refers to a “recount” as a “final count”. For example, section 87 provides:
“S.(87) (1) Where a returning officer is required to have a final count of the votes cast for all, or some, of the polling places, he shall in the presence of such persons entitled under section 86(1) to be present as attend-
(a)open each ballot box;
(b)take out the ballot papers;
(c)count and record the number of ballot papers taken from each ballot box;
(e) count the votes recorded for each list of candidates…”
It is as simple as that. Of course the law provides for how you treat invalid ballots and spoilt ballots etc. Once this process is followed, it cannot be the subject of a successful legal challenge. The legislation also provides for party representatives and observers to be part of the exercise. The law is silent on how many boxes can be counted at the same time, although, the law contemplates that all ten regions can be counted together. Hence, our proposal for 20 boxes and more than one region to be counted simultaneously.
I urge all to support the PPP’s proposal and to reject any proposal which comes from APNU+AFC or Lowenfield. Like Mingo, he is part of the problem and cannot be part of the solution. In terms of the actual counting, we prefer that GECOM calls in aid a reputable auditing firm or the Office of the Auditor General to assist. The Secretariat staff at GECOM no longer enjoys public confidence. GECOM has the power to enlist such assistance, as is expressed in Article 162(1)(b):
“162. (1) … the Commission-
(b) shall issue such instructions and take such action as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of this Constitution or any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to the matters aforesaid.”
Before I close, I wish to make it clear that I do not associate Justice Claudette Singh with the political conspiracy articulated above. However, I will be less than honest if I exonerate her completely from blame. Her failure to act decisively and using that powerful casting vote with which she is legally equipped, have contributed significantly to the cabal currently holding this nation at ransom. However, they will not succeed. We are nearing the end of the road. Justice Singh must take command now. The recount must be kick started next week and conclude with every convenient speed. She must ensure that it is done transparently. Voting in support of our request to have the process televised and streamed live, will go a far way in achieving this objective. In the end, this process must enjoy public confidence. I remind her of the following stirring plea which she made in her submissions to the Court, in the Ulita Moore case:
“In the present volatile situation, which pervades our country no effort must be spared to assure everyone that the process was fair and impartial. Lingering doubts that hang like a sword of Damocles over the head of the Commission must be removed. Confidence in the electoral process must be restored.”
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall
