Dear Editor,
When President David Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo along with Caricom and GECOM’s Chair signed the “aide memoire”, the document that stated the terms and conditions of the recount and verification of the votes cast in the ten electoral districts in the country, it was followed by a gazetted order that gives legality to the mandate of the recount process. Guyanese got a sense of comfort that matters related to the election crisis would be dealt with objectively and fairly. This was not to be – and we were led into a false sense of hope.
I have not had the opportunity to read and study the report submitted to GECOM‘s Chair by the three-member Caricom scrutineers team. However, the aspects of the report that will be addressed in this letter have been reported in the media giving legitimacy to its accuracy. The Guyanese nation and the world got the impression based on the content of the agreement that the recount process had at least two major objectives: (a) tabulation of votes cast (valid votes} and (2) verifying the creditability of the election process. In the 35-plus days during the recount process, the nation and the world were constantly being barraged with two sets of information: the numerical number of votes each contesting parties received, and the uncovering of numerous irregularities, anomalies, discrepancies and fraud.
Any reasonable person faced with the above would be hard-pressed to ignore the issue of the effects of pervasive irregularities, anomalies etc on the creditability of the elections and their impact for GECOM’s decision to declare a winner. We were informed by the Caricom scrutineers that they only dealt with 18% of the 2,339 ballot boxes. This raised the question of whether that limited examination is sufficient to justify the conclusion that they came to. I am aware that there are statistical models that are used to determine outcomes. Since the Caricom team have not stated its model we have nothing to go on. I am no statistician so my judgement could be challenged. But like hundreds of thousands of Guyanese, I have difficulties accepting the 18% theory as adequate to decide on which party wins the election and that the discrepancies are not sufficient to abort the elections.
The decision arrived at by the Caricom scrutineers that a winner of the elections can be declared based on the tabulation of the recount votes, with no genuine attempt to address the creditability of those votes, knowing that this is critical to the acceptance of the outcome, flies in the face of natural justice and can only worsen the political/ racial divide in the country. As matters stand the tabulated results means that the PPP/C got back all the votes that they were previously deprived of to the satisfaction of its supporters. On the other hand, the APNU+AFC and its supporters got relatively, “nothing”. Generally, the fraudulent PPP/C votes were not deducted. In a country with a known history of rigged elections, Caricom scrutineers must be aware that this will not fly in this divided country.
My final observation of the report. It did not embrace modern jurisprudence as cited by Dr. Henry Jeffrey and others that is based on the qualitative and not the old quantitative process to decide on the weight given to irregularities and fraud in determining the validity of elections. What they have done is a disservice to the country. Rather than helping to put a brake on our history of tainted elections practices the Caricom team has reinforced our negative electoral conduct. This is exactly what we were doing for the last six decades and more importantly post 1992. In the end, it would be the Guyanese people and their institutions that will have to decide how longer we want to invest in this reckless “winner take all” contest base on tainted elections.
I am not surprised by the counterproductive position taken by Caricom on our election crisis in light of the overt interference by the United States government and its allies of which most Caricom governments are willing collaborators.
In concluding I must point out that the statement in the Caricom scrutineers report that the APNU+AFC did not provide evidence to support their claims of discrepancies, anomalies and irregularities, is not only erroneous, but an insult to the Guyanese nation, and calls into question the objectivity, honesty and impartially of this distinguished Caricom team.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
Editor-in-Chief’s note:
The Caricom team did an outstanding job in helping to save electoral democracy here. The entire country owes them a debt of gratitude. From the inception the team was entrusted with the task of a simple recount not an audit. The recount order unconstitutionally imposed tasks more in keeping with an election petition. Nevertheless, the Caricom team was not persuaded by the frantic and unstructured claims by APNU+AFC agents. There is general agreement that these claims constituted fishing expeditions and the High Court is the venue where they can be tested. Mr Ogunseye and others are still to explain how APNU+AFC somersaulted from claiming victory in what has now been established to have been a rigged District Four count to alleging that the election has been rigged against it notwithstanding the fact that APNU+AFC apparatchiks have been in full and cloying control of the electoral machinery.
