Dear Editor,
It was hoped that the appointment of Justice Claudette Singh as GECOM’s chairman would have satisfied all the criteria envisioned in the statutory purpose of this position. After all, the Constitution was amended in 2000 to give preference to the appointment of a person who has held office as a judge. The purpose obviously was to fill this position with someone of legal courage and integrity to do what the law requires. The chairman was expected to be a fair and unbiased arbiter, given the politicized nature of the equal number of Commissioners supporting the government and the opposition parties.
As a start, I am fortified in my view that Justice Claudette Singh clearly displayed a wanton lack of legal courage at the most critical juncture in the execution of her office. She deliberately abandoned the scene when Clairmont Mingo and Keith Lowenfield embarked on their expedition to produce fictitious figures in District Four. She hid herself in a locked room. Up to today, she has not given an explanation for this despicable act. She has clearly abdicated her responsibility to see to it that the tabulation of the SOPs were carried out in a fair and transparent manner. Will she claim that because she did not witness the rigging with her eyes then she is not a party to it? Not so fast, I dare say, she wilfully and recklessly neglected her duty. The next question is, what was her motive? Again I say, it cannot be honourable.
Claudette Singh, as a former judge, ought to know by the overwhelming and credible evidence that certain individuals, including Mingo, Lowenfield and Myers should be prohibited or restrained from playing any further role directly and indirectly in the election proceedings. These individuals and others have demonstrated actual bias and reasonable apprehension of bias at the very least. Their further involvement will constitute an improper use of GECOM’s jurisdiction.
Given the historical evidence of rigged elections by at least one major political party to the election, GECOM and the chairman should cater for a heightened duty of procedural and substantive fairness. The duty to be fair is laid out in the Representation of the People Act and pervades in common law principles. However, Claudette Singh has clearly aided and abetted the Secretariat and PNC’s Commissioners mission to continuously plant obstacles in the path of fair, transparent and expeditious declaration of the election results. The question that arises is when will they stop this behaviour? Would it be when they are jointly satisfied that they have concocted enough measures to rig the election?
GECOM and the chairman constituting a statutory public decision making body have unlawfully failed to and have unreasonable delayed in performing their legal duties. They have failed to obey the law that enabled their powers under the Representation of the People Act. In light of the seriousness of the issue of national and regional elections for democratic governance; the irreparable harm and inconvenience resulting from the delay; and the overwhelming public, national and international interests in the matter, the election process should be concluded with utmost speed.
Should Justice Claudette Singh continue with the current modus operandi, she is clearly running the risk of morphing from being the judge to becoming the accused. The people will judge her harshly.
Yours faithfully,
Tameshwar N Lilmohan
