What else can be said about Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield that has not already been said? Or for that matter about the three government-appointed commissioners of Gecom? When citizens were cautiously hoping that at last the nation may be nearing the end of this interminable saga following the March 2nd election, they discovered that those committed to dishonesty were still pursuing their unscrupulous ends.
There was Mr Lowenfield who had been instructed by Gecom Chair Claudette Singh to submit a report based on the recount results on Friday, but who arrived at the Commission meeting to claim he could not do it because he required clarification. The absurdity of what he told the commissioners is made clear by Mr Ralph Ramkarran in his column this week titled ‘Mumbo jumbo.’ The headline says it all.
Nonetheless an indulgent Justice Singh directed him once again to produce the required document, giving him a deadline of 11 am yesterday. He did not appear, but submitted a report which defies reason. It bore no relation to the recount figures, instead allocating 236,777 votes to APNU+AFC, 229,330 to the PPP/C and 5,091 for the joinder of the three new parties. In other words it would give 33 seats to the first-named party, 31 seats to the main opposition and 1 to the joint slate. As is well known, the recount shows the PPP/C winning the poll securing 233,336 votes compared to the 217,920 obtained by the coalition.
As our report said yesterday, it is not clear how the CEO arrived at his figures, although they are similar to, although not the same as those that encompassed the fraudulent figures of District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo on March 13th, which eventually triggered the recount. His numbers on that occasion showed 237,371 votes for the incumbent and 229,510 for the PPP/C.
It was not just Mr Lowenfield’s deviant behaviour in terms of his duties which was cause for unease yesterday, but also the fact that none of the coalition commissioners attended the meeting. We reported one of them, Mr Desmond Trotman, as telling this newspaper that he had asked for the meeting to be rescheduled owing to concerns he had which were shared by his two fellow commissioners. However, he was unable to say why they did not attend.
It is difficult to understand what concerns the government commissioners could have considering that we are so close to the end of the process, other than the fact that they are resisting a declaration in conformity with the recount. It is stretching credulity to believe that the three did not act in concert, more especially as this is not the first time it has happened. Since they knew very well that if they did not attend there would be no quorum and consequently there could be no declaration, the inevitable conclusions will be drawn about their intentions.
On Friday the state newspaper reported Commissioner Vincent Alexander as expressing the view that the way to proceed was a non-declaration of a result, the compilation of a new voters’ list, and then a fresh election. Does he seriously believe that this is possible? Or was this just one of his idle daydreams? Even if by some extraordinary stretch of the imagination it were possible, it would not insulate either the nation or some of its leading players bent on electoral theft from international sanctions.
Unless the coalition commissioners have some manoeuvre in mind to delay the declaration yet again which no one else can divine, it is difficult to see it not going ahead. Opposition-appointed Commissioner Sase Gunraj told this newspaper he was confident that a way would be found to have the recount results declared when Gecom next met.
What can be said is that a non-declaration is simply nonsense, the consequences of which if by some outrageous fluke it happened, do not bear thinking about. Fortunately, however, the government-appointed commissioners do not have it in their power to prevent the Commission from meeting with this in mind. When it next convenes it will not need them in order to form a quorum. On the second occasion following an aborted meeting because of lack of a quorum, all that is required for a legitimate vote is four members including the Chair. Since there is little doubt that the opposition commissioners will ensure they are present, and since there is no doubt they will be in favour of a declaration on the basis of the recount, perhaps we might see the end of the ordeal.
It may very well be that the coalition commissioners do not turn up again, because they do not wish to be associated with a legitimate declaration. Alternatively, they may attend and raise all kinds of objections with a view to the meeting having to carry over to another day. That is a game, however, which cannot continue indefinitely.
As for Mr Lowenfield, whose latest report Commissioner Gunraj described as a “clear and flagrant violation” in the light of two letters sent him by the Gecom Chair, as argued in our editorial yesterday, it is way past time that he was fired.
