Dear Editor,
The Court of Appeal recently returned a ruling to the effect that the term “more votes cast“ in Article 177(2) of our Constitution shall be construed to mean ”more valid votes cast“.
On the face of it this appears to be a trivial ruling since it is doubtful that the framers of this particular clause would have ever contemplated the use of invalid votes in determining the election of a president.
However, there may be more to this decision than meets the eye.
Defenders of the Coalition have been quick to claim that this decision confers upon the Chief Election Officer an added duty to apply, to votes already deemed valid, an additional test to determine voter credibility. The order of the Court of Appeal does not ,however, specify what criteria are to be used in carrying out this test.
It must be remembered that election results are determined through a series of processes on polling day which include establishing the bona fides of each voter presenting themselves at the polling station and the counting process after the close of polls.
With regard to the bona fides of the individual voter, it would have been the duty of each party
polling agent during the course of the poll to satisfy themselves as to the identity of each voter using the data provided on the list of electors and the folio displaying the photograph of each person on that list. A visual check of the voter’s fingers would have determined whether or not that person had already voted.
The counting process is stipulated in the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03 which specifies the sequence of each of the steps to be taken in arriving at the final figures that are to be entered on the Statement of Poll.
Once the Statement of Poll had been prepared each party polling agent, along with the GECOM personnel present during the count, would have then attested to the correctness of the Statement of Poll by affixing his or her signature to that document.
Each party polling agent would have then been provided with a copy of the signed Statement of Poll.
At this point, the polling agent for each political party would have been satisfied that the signed Statement of Poll in his or her possession accurately reflected the total amount of valid votes cast for each political party.
The processes, carried out in accordance with the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03 , up to the point of the signing of the Statement of Poll, would have ensured the validity of each vote contained in the totals therein.
It is at this point that the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03 mandates that a copy of the signed Statement of Poll is to be displayed in a prominent place outside the polling station.
After this would have been done the various essential electoral materials would have then been placed in the appropriate envelope which in turn would have been placed in the ballot box. The affixing of each party’s seal on the locked ballot box would have completed the process.
From a logical point of view, nothing omitted from the box either intentionally or in error could therefore have had any bearing on the validity of votes contained in the totals on the signed Statement of Poll since the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03 mandates that this would have had to have been prepared, signed and posted outside the polling station prior to the packing and sealing of the ballot box.
The signed Statements of Poll delivered to the respective Returning Officers would have then been used to arrive at the totals for each electoral district which in turn would have been used by the Chief Election Officer to determine the overall result of the election.
The additional duty conferred upon the Chief Election Officer, which, Coalition defenders argue, is implied in the decision of the Court of Appeal, seems to suggest that from henceforth an audit of the ballots must be carried out before any declaration of election results can be made.
How else can the Chief Election Officer insert him or herself into the process in order to administer the additional test of voter credibility?
If the decision of the Court of Appeal is to be interpreted this way, then it renders the process of counting at the place of poll redundant and makes a mockery of the entire section of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03 that mandates this process.
Surely it behooves the Chief Election Officer to satisfy himself as to the credibility of each voter prior to the election and not afterwards as the decision of the Court of Appeal appears to suggest. This can be done by ensuring that the voters list is maintained on an ongoing basis so that it is credible on the day of the election. This, in conjunction with the various checks and balances put in place on election day at each polling station in accordance with the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03 , will ensure that only valid votes are counted at the place of poll.
All the signs, at this point in time, lead the ominous conclusion that it is the intention of some person or persons to have us return to a system of centralized vote counting.
We have already witnessed the suppression by GECOM of the Region Four Statements of Poll which forced the recount, in reality an audit in disguise, upon us. GECOM has yet to explain to the people of Guyana the reason for not using these Statements of Poll when they made their first declaration of the election results earlier in March.
It cannot be stressed enough that the Statements of Poll are vital to the integrity of the electoral process and that dispensing with their use makes counting at the place of poll superfluous.
Centralized counting is a retrograde step and is to be regarded as yet another nail hammered into the coffin of democracy in Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Marcel Gaskin
