As this process concludes, it is important for all stakeholders to uphold the integrity of the process and peacefully accept the wishes of the Guyanese population. There will be disappointment for those who have lost. Those who are elected must take on this responsibility with humility and demonstrate that they will govern for the benefit of every Guyanese citizen. We encourage party leaders to commit to constitutional reform and reconciliation to ensure every Guyanese, regardless of party affiliation, sees how their government will work in their best interest.
Ambassadors of the ABCE countries
Today marks the 34th day since the commencement of the recount of the votes cast in the 2 March 2020 general and regional elections. As of last Saturday, a total of 2,265 out of 2339 ballot boxes have been opened and recounted.
GECOM Chair’s letter to the Commissioner of Police
We had stated that there were conflicting reports whether the Commission had written to the Chief Immigration Officer requesting information about persons who the APNU+AFC alleged have migrated but voted in the elections without being present in Guyana. GECOM Chair did write to the Commissioner of Police (in his capacity as Chief Immigration Officer) on 22 May. This was one day after she had stated that ‘[w]hile I continue to monitor the trends based on the allegations in the observation reports; I am of the view that, he who asserts must prove’.
The Commission did not officially discuss the matter, and therefore GECOM Chair appears to have acted on her own in sending the letter containing a list of 200 names of persons along with their dates of birth. It is unclear, however, how a political party could have obtained information on the dates of birth of these persons since the Official List of Electors (OLE) did not contain such information. The OLE only showed the person’s name, address, occupation and ID number.
The APNU+AFC has since submitted three additional lists of persons alleged to have voted while overseas on polling day, or have voted without ID or sworn affidavits, or have died. However, the allegations remain largely unsubstantiated. Given the elaborate controls in place at the various polling stations to prevent voter fraud, it is extremely unlikely that irregularities could have occurred on the scale that the APNU+AFC is contending. One is reminded of a comment by the EU Ambassador to Guyana that ‘it was safeguard after safeguard after safeguard’. Attorney-at-law and ANUG Chairman Timothy Jonas, also had the following to say:
GECOM had on elections day a very strict method of screening for anybody who came to vote. All the party representatives, all the GECOM staff and agents checked the list, looked at your ID and you were allowed to vote, so GECOM’s own record, means that this process went through… GECOM can’t look behind that, they can’t go outside and get evidence to try to disprove what their own record generated.
Criticisms of GECOM Chair’s action
GECOM Chair has been roundly criticized for her action which is contrary to her assertion that the onus of proof is on the person(s) making the allegations. Critics, including the main political parties contesting the elections (except APNU+AFC), have commented that it is inappropriate for the Commission to investigate allegations of irregularities in the voting process since it would place itself in a position of conflict of interest. This is because it is the very Commission that was responsible for putting systems and procedures in place to avoid voter irregularities. In other words, the Commission would be investigating itself. That apart, Article 163 (1) (b) (i) of the Constitution provides for the High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question whether ‘either generally or in any particular place, an election has been unlawfully conducted or the result thereof has been, or may have been, affected by any unlawful act or omission’.
The logical course of action for GECOM should have been to first initiate an internal investigation (assuming that GECOM has the legal mandate to do so) to confirm whether these persons actually voted on polling day. This is done through examining the relevant records, more specifically the list of voters of the relevant polling stations to ascertain whether their names have been ticked off as having voted. It is only when there is conclusive evidence that these persons have voted that the Commission should have contacted the Commissioner of Police.
Commissioner of Police’s response
The Commissioner of Police responded on 27 May confirming that 172 persons from the list were not in the country on polling day. Several persons have since come forward and debunked the allegation that they were not in the country. The most absurd case is one of prominent city Attorney-at-law Devendra Kissoon who not only voted at a polling station in Bel Air Park, Georgetown but was also an observer to the elections! In an attempt at defence, the Commissioner of Police argued that the information was presented based on information contained in its database and that persons might have entered the country illegally.
Instead of seeking to investigate the APNU+AFC’s allegations of irregularities on polling day, GECOM should have called in the Police since 5 March when there was confirmed evidence, not allegations, that the Returning Officer (RO) was tampering with the tabulation results by inflating the number of votes for APNU+AFC and in some cases reducing the number for PPP/C. During the recount so far, the tampering became clearer and clearer. When the discrepancies between the Statements of Recount and results for Region 4 as declared by the RO were pointed out to the Elections Supervisor for noting and inclusion in the Observation Reports, the official declined to do so, contending that the focus was on the recount exercise. Yet all the allegations made by the APNU+AFC were included in these reports!
EU Elections Observer Report
Since the 1970s, the European Union (EU) has been providing support for the Government’s Sea and River Defence Programme. As one of the accredited overseas observer group to the elections, the EU has issued its final report. The main observation was that while voting, counting and the tabulation of results for nine of the ten regions were generally well managed, the integrity of the entire electoral process was seriously compromised by ‘the non-transparent and non-credible’ tabulation of results for Region 4 by senior GECOM officials, ‘acting in blatant violation of the law and High Court orders issued in this regard’. The report further stated that:
The process abruptly derailed into chaos and confusion amidst obstruction tactics by … officials in the divisive Region 4. On 5 March, the Returning Officer (RO) declared results without having tabulated them in the presence of party agents and observers as required by law. After these results were annulled by the Chief Justice as unlawful, GECOM still allowed the same RO to rush through the rest of the tabulation without any transparency in blatant violation of the law and explicit court orders, and to make a second declaration of unverified results on 13 March.
The results declared by the RO on March 13 are not credible. These results gave APNU+AFC and PPP/C 136,057 and 77,231 votes, respectively, for the general elections in Region 4, which would be enough for the ruling coalition to overcome the opposition’s advantage in the other regions and take the lead nationally. At the same time, the PPP/C’s parallel tabulation suggested the opposite outcome, with the ruling coalition gaining 114,416 votes to its 80,150 votes in the region, thus placing the PPP/C ahead nationally.
The report contains 26 recommendations of which eight the EU considers of high priority, including the need to: (i) consolidate the fragmented election legislation to strengthen legal clarity and certainty; (ii) overhaul the composition and functioning of the Elections Commission to ensure broader participation; (iii) develop legislation to regulate campaign financing to provide transparency in contributions received as well as limits to expenditure, including the establishment of an independent oversight body; and (iv) transform State-owned media into a genuine public service broadcaster.
Status of the recount
As of last Saturday (Day 32), a total of 2,265 out of 2,339 ballot boxes for the general elections, or 96.8 percent, were opened and recounted. With 74 boxes left to be counted, the exercise was expected to conclude yesterday. Except for minor discrepancies, the results of recounts as shown in the Statements of Recount (SOR) match the information contained in the SOPs that have been prepared at the close of polls and posted at the various polling stations. The APNU+AFC, however, issued a statement that ‘[a]ny results emanating from this process cannot be considered credible because of the high incidence of fraud’.
The latest development is the discovery of 29 ballot boxes from the East Coast Demerara that did not include the statutory documents such as counterfoils, list of electors, poll books, folios, spoiled and damaged ballots, and proxies. In an email to the GECOM Chair, the Deputy RO for Chateau Margot Primary School stated that the Clerk to the RO for Region 4 had instructed him not to include these documents but to place them in a separate bag to be sent to the Chief Election Officer. This instruction was also communicated to the respective Presiding Officers who complied. GECOM, however, refuted the Deputy RO’s statement, citing a statement to the contrary from a group of Deputy ROs. However, despite requests from the media, this statement has not been made public.
The Commission has indicated that it was trying to locate the missing documents and that there were objections to the tabulation of the results for these 29 ballot boxes being included in the overall recount results. The Commission therefore decided that the related SORs would be excluded until the missing documents are located and the matter resolved. The boxes contain approximately 7,000 ballots.
Respecting the results
Five members of the U.S. Congress have written to the President urging him to respect the results of the recount. They stated that they remained hopeful that the recount will be conducted ‘in a fair and transparent manner, instilling confidence in the results and Guyana’s democratic institutions – with the support of credible international observers that can verify the integrity of the process and the final result’. The Congressmen further stated that the legitimacy of elections is essential to the health of democracies everywhere with the help of credible international observers.
And in a most recent statement, the Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs, Michel Kuzak urged President Granger and the Opposition Leader to honour their commitments to respect legitimate recount results. He indicated that the United States would support ‘those leaders and institutions that adhere to Guyana’s democratic principles and ensure the voice and will of the people is heard’.
The Former World Leaders’ Group, known as Elders, stated that it continues to view the situation in Guyana with concern, especially the recent barring of the Carter Center observers, and asserted that ‘[t]he will of the people must be respected through the swearing in of a legitimate Government based on the recount’s results’. The Group was founded in 2007 by former South African President Nelson Mandela to address issues from climate change to conflict resolution. Headquartered in London, it comprises several former heads of state and other prominent leaders, including Mary Robinson (Ireland), former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Ellen Sirleaf (Liberia), Archbishop Desmond Tutu (South Africa), Martti Ahtisaari (Finland), and Juan Santos (Colombia) and Jimmy Carter (United States) .
Guyanese diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders added his voice by warning that if the results of the recount do not produce a government that reflects the majority vote, Guyana may be suspended from both the Commonwealth and the OAS in addition to other measures that may be taken.
For its part, the OAS has made it clear that, based on the reports it has received from their observers at the site of the recount, the exercise was conducted in a ‘professional, transparent and impartial fashion’ that allowed the Elections Commission political parties and other stakeholders to accurately determine the results. The OAS further stated that citizens have been patient and deserve ‘a peaceful transition of government based on the majority vote as reflected in the recount and in support of democracy and the rule of law, which all OAS member states expect to be upheld’.
A senior APNU+AFC representative, however, took issue with the OAS, arguing that it was preempting a ruling of the GECOM and was ‘stepping beyond just international relations’ which amounts to interference in the internal affairs of the country. The OAS is an accredited observer to the elections and is expected to produce a report of its assessment of what transpired. The U.S. Ambassador had cause to point out that in January 2019 Guyana along with 12 other countries from the Lima Group had asserted that the Venezuelan election of 20 May 2018 lacked legitimacy as it did not include participation of all political actors in Venezuela nor were there independent international observers. The election also did not comply with the necessary guarantees or international standards for a free, fair and transparent election. Accordingly, the Group indicated that it does not recognize the legitimacy of the new presidential term of Nicolas Maduro. If the OAS’s observations are tantamount to interference, could not the same be said of Guyana in relation to its statement on Venezuela? Besides, as a member of the OAS, Guyana subscribes to certain principles on democratic governance, including respecting the will of citizens to elect a government of their choice.
We repeat what we have said before. Had it not been for the international observers and the diplomatic community in Guyana, the President would have been sworn in for a second term on the basis of the flawed and tampered election results declared on 13 March. In this regard, we owe an immense debt of gratitude to those who have stood by us so far in our moment of trials and tribulations to ensure democratic governance and the rule of law prevail. If the will of the people to elect a government of their choice is thwarted, it will usher in a second wave of undemocratic and authoritarian rule. The first, which lasted 24 years, brought the country to its knees, as citizens struggled to survive the economic hardships brought about by an authoritarian and dictatorial regime.
