Dear Editor,
I have seen a press release from Keith Lowenfield who currently occupies the position of Chief Election Officer and one must wonder who advises him when he purports to issue such statements.
First, Lowenfield asserts that he is a “Constitutional Officer”. Lowenfield will be appropriately advised in due course that a singular reference to an officer in the Constitution does not make you a “Constitutional Officer” without the attendant provisions defining the office such as its genesis, its primary function, and protections distinct from the ordinary lawful processes. In fact, the Chief Election Officer is a “statutory officer” which finds its genesis in the Representation of the People Act 1:04 (originally from a 1964 Act from the United Kingdom). The insertion of the reference to the office in the Constitution came in the year 2000 after the issues which arose pertaining to the swearing in of former President Janet Jagan when it became clear to GECOM that Mrs Jagan as the Presidential Candidate of the PPP/C had an unassailable lead but the tabulation was not yet completed to determine the apportionment of seats in the National Assembly for contesting political parties.
Second, Lowenfield states that there are “sections” of the Constitution which “dictate the functions of the Chief Election Officer”. This is both incorrect and misleading. Lowenfield will be appropriately advised in due course that there are no “sections” in the Constitution which “dictate the functions of the Chief Election Officer”. As mentioned above there is a singular and belatedly inserted reference to the Chief Election Officer in the Constitution, so it is numerically impossible for there to be other “sections” in the Constitution to read. The Constitution explains the “Functions of the Election Commission” at Art. 162 but there is no such comparable Article in the Constitution for the Chief Election Officer. All of the functions of the Chief Election Officer is contained in the ROPA 1:03 and not Constitution.
Third, Lowenfield states that GECOM only makes policy decisions and provides guidance to the Chief Election Officer. This is entirely incorrect and Lowenfield will be appropriately advised in due course. Art. 162 of the Constitution specifically states that GECOM “shall issue such instructions and take such action as appears to it necessary … to ensure … compliance with the provisions of this Constitution or of any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to” either the conduct of elections or registration of electors. Before Lowenfield pursues a precipitous course of action which will lead inevitably to failure, he may also direct his attention to S. 18 of the Elections Laws Act and point number 15 of the recount Order which state that the Chief Election Officer shall be subject to the “direction and control” and “general supervisory power” of the Commission.
Finally, the Chief Election Officer is subordinate to GECOM and the sooner Lowenfield is appropriately advised of such, life in Guyana will return to normal.
Yours faithfully,
Charles S. Ramson
