Overall Conclusion
We fully understand the magnitude and significance of these elections. The 2020 General and Regional Elections took place against the backdrop of the commencement of oil exploitation and with it the possibilities of huge oil revenues. It is unsurprising then, that these were high stake elections, since victory automatically translates to access to the oil revenues generated by the commercial exploitation and exportation of petroleum.
From the outset the Team wishes to acknowledge that the exercise that we observed was not in fact a recount. It was an audit of the votes cast on March 02, 2020 and from the start it was conceived as an audit, notwithstanding the statements on a national recount. A recount of votes means exactly that, a counting of the ballots cast. In this case, the so-called recount extended to issues normally reserved for an audit of ballots cast in an election. Audits as distinct to a mere recount demand the following:
● inspection of the ballot;
● tally sheets;
● poll books (journals in some countries);
● inspection of the condition of the ballot box;
● existence of the official stamps and party
stickers;
● seals of GECOM. Were these seals intact?
● were the serial numbers of the seals the same as
those of the recording form or poll book inside
the ballot box?
● inspection of the unused, spoiled or invalid ballot
papers;
● count of the unused, spoilt and damaged
ballots;
● the official stamp on ballot papers. Did the
ballots recounted bear a stamp (a watermark for
instance);
● were the ballot papers marked according to the
procedure? If so how many and in whose favour,
if not? How many and against which party; and
● other polling station documents•
This is representative of what occurred at the recount in Guyana and was conceptualized and designed as such from the outset as the Gazetted Order and Work Plan revealed. From the start, the recount activities went beyond the original stated objective of the exercise and contributed almost entirely to the extended time taken to undertake an exercise which ought to have been limited to a count of the votes. We were told by the CEO, that initially the objective of the exercise was a “recount”, that is a straight count of the ballots cast on March 02, 2020. However, according to the CEO, the national recount evolved into something entirely different to a recount, which the CEO attributed to the decision made by the Commission. In the words of the CEO, “what the Com-mission wants, is what the Commission gets”.
Overall, while we acknowledge that there were some defects in the recount of the March 02, 2020 votes cast for the General and Regional elections in Guyana, the Team did not witness anything which would render the recount and by extension the casting of the ballot on March 02, so grievously deficient procedurally or technically, (despite some irregularities), or sufficiently deficient to have thwarted the will of the people and consequently preventing the election results and its declaration by GECOM from reflecting the will of the voters. The actual count of the vote was indeed transparent.
The public utterances of some GECOM Commission-ers, political pundits and politicians may have sounded an ominous tone for the 2020 elections, with the partisan driven and distorted narrative on migrant voting, phantom voting, and implied voter impersonation. The recounting of the votes was conducted with as much precision as possible and with absolutely no hint of bias shown on the part of the GECOM station workers. Their impartiality with respect to the vote recount was outstanding.
The Team was particularly alarmed by some of the imprudent remarks made by some Commissioners to the various media outlets which in our opinion added to the tense political environment in the country and which unfortunately provided the public with a view of the Commission that any independent body would wish to avoid. Additionally, the Team observed the antics of the political operatives from both within the Commission and from the political parties as they all attempted (traditional and new) to harness the media and their political capital for their own narrow and selfish political purposes. The constant references to irregularities made by GECOM Commissioners for instance could not but have a deleterious impact on the legitimacy of a body of which they were a part. GECOM Commissioners were therefore complicit in the assault on the legitimacy and independence of that institution. We noted the efforts as well as the attempts to encircle the CARICOM Team in the tomfoolery as part of the psychological warfare being waged.
Too often politicians on both sides of the political divide attempted to compromise the independence of the Commission as the only institution with constitutional and statutory power and responsibility to undertake and oversee matters related to elections. This tendency has to be contained so that the legitimacy of GECOM remains above board.
The Team notes that there were some irregularities at the 2020 elections which were revealed through the very transparent national recount but none of these irregularities and shortcomings are sufficient nor substantial cause, to call the 2020 results into question. Yes the recount suggests that the poll was far from perfect but the imperfections cannot deny that the elections and therefore the recount were reasonably credible. We were impressed with the relative orderliness which generally characterised each day’s activities at the recount centre.
GECOM is legally entrusted with administering elections, which includes its procedural and operational pro-cesses. The elections were a technical function. However, the administrative face of GECOM which is headed by the CEO is often hampered by the Commission itself which is by and large a political body. Consequently, the manner in which the administrative and technical arm of GECOM executed its plans for the national recount could not but be impacted by this fact. After all, “what the Commission wants, is what the Commission gets”. Indeed, some twenty-two years after the submission of the Report of the CARICOM Audit Commission (CAC), it is of note that recommendations of the CAC remain relevant today as they were in 1998. The CAC specifically urged serious consideration be given to the composition of the electoral Commission and “strongly supports nonpartisan and independent membership as more conducive to the effective conduct of free and fair elections.
The Team also finds it interesting and noteworthy that in 1998, the CAC report raised the red flag in relation to the failure to ensure a clear demarcation of roles of the Secretariat and the Commission itself. In its report the CAC noted that, “some significant difficulties contributed in certain aspects to the unsatisfactory quality of management of the electoral process. The Report noted three major difficulties leading to the unsatisfactory quality of management, including:
1. inadequate role demarcation as between the
functions of the Elections Commission and that
of the National Registration Centre (NRC)
2. insufficient integration of the Commission staff
and the NRC staff
Given therefore the nature of GECOM, the national recount of the March 02, 2020 elections could not fail, but be a political process resting uneasily alongside the technical aspects of the recount process.
The net effect of GECOM’s political nature is the fact that what ought to have been an essentially technical and administrative process was intimately linked and stymied by a process of negotiations, bargaining and constant and persistent renegotiations with the powerful Private Sector Commission and political parties with their incessant demands that often saw GECOM twisting and turning like a willow tree not the oak tree that is required.
We are however, of the unshakable belief that the people of Guyana expressed their will at the ballot box, and as a result, the 3 person CARICOM Observer Team concludes that the recount results are completely acceptable. There are obvious lessons to learn from this experience which going forward the government and the people of Guyana must make every effort to rectify in the best interest of democratic governance. Many of the instances of irregularities that we witnessed can be explained by either the incompetence of some of the Presiding Officers at the polling stations on March 02, 2020 and or the failure to give adequate training by GECOM to its staff on the varied possibilities which may have arisen at the level of the individual stations.
Additionally, we are mindful of the weaknesses exposed in the electoral environment and specifically in the governance system of elections that were brought into sharp relief by the recount, which GECOM must take immediate action to rectify. Elections are time bound and strictly regulated.
Though we must confront the inescapable fact that the recount was unreasonably long, and consequently unjust to the voters and the people of Guyana, nonetheless, this dispute resolution has shown that the systems put in place have worked. The national recount provided an opportunity for redress, and with vigilance and effective systems of transparency, checks and balances which we witnessed during the recount process, public confidence in the system going forward can be assured once the corrective measures which we have recommended are taken.
The national recount process then, despite some of its administrative failings, despite some of the minor flaws, is not an indictment of the 2020 polls and the Team categorically rejects the concerted public efforts to discredit the 2020 poll up to the disastrous Region 4 tabulation. Despite our concerns, nothing that we witnessed, warrants a challenge to the inescapable conclusion that the recount results are acceptable and should constitute the basis of the declaration of the results of the March 02, 2020 elections. Any aggrieved political party has been afforded the right to seek redress before the courts in the form of an election petition.
But what is also unmistakeable is that a political audit of GECOM, (its successes and failing and the factors contributing to this), both the Commission and its administrative arm, is urgently warranted. It therefore behoves whichever political party emerges victorious from these elections to initiate an immediate political audit, as in a very real sense GECOM betrayed its obligations to behave impartially and independently in the best interest of integrity based processes which did not favour any party or parties whether in terms of operational or policy decisions.
Summary of Observations
The Team found the national recount of the votes cast for the general and regional elections to have been conducted in a transparent manner. The recount itself was credible and guided by the work plan produced by GECOM’s Secretariat in keeping with the guidelines of the Commission.
Summary of Recommendations
● Greater emphasis on voter education especially
with regard to the handling of ballot papers by
presiding officers and citizens.
● A code of conduct governing the behaviour of
party agents should be established in concert
with the political parties.
● The Team strongly recommends an investigation
into the missing documents.
● As a minimum condition of electoral reform, the Team recommends the urgent need for the total re-registration of all voters in Guyana. It is clear that given the state of the voter registration of the country that Guyana was not adequately prepared for the 2020 poll.
*A related issue is the need to revisit the rationalisation of the location of polling stations across Guyana. We are aware that every vote is critical. An appreciation of a polling station with one registered voter is difficult to understand. It is therefore recommended that a more viable arrangement be explored to accommodate single digit voters.
*Revisit its electoral governance system and in particular its primary institution that of GECOM on the basis of its less than stellar performance.
*Related to the above, we recommend the immediate rethinking of the structural organisation of GECOM particularly with respect to selection of the Commissioners. The party representative model with a balanced representation of the two major political forces will simply not work and will continue to lead to the stalemate situations experienced in Guyana in 2020, given the emphasis on collusion with the two dominant political parties and their coalition partners.
*Finally, given all the irregularities which occurred throughout the period of the electoral cycle, we highly recommend that a political audit be conducted of the operations and behaviour of GECOM, both of the Commission and the Secretariat.
**********************
• Behaviour of Party Representatives in Work Stations I
The level of aggression displayed by some agents in the recount Work Stations leaves much to be desired. Indeed; the conduct displayed by some of the observed party agents (APNU/AFC) was totally unacceptable. Having noted this; however; it is important to say that the presence of the
agents was critical for many reasons, not least among which of course is the issue of transparency. The agents, particularly the representatives of the APNU/AFC and PPP Civic, were diligent advocates and defenders of their respective parties. Further, they served as that important fifth set of eyes so to speak where, for a variety of reasons; GECOM staff were unable to detect errors.
• Demands for Information on Serial Numbers by Agents
The numerous requests for information on serial numbers were so bizarre, that on one observed occasion, an APNU/AFC agent was prepared to query serial numbers on the OLE in a Work Station where no one had voted. These challenges were often made on the grounds of:
• Death, and
• Migration. I
Presumably therefore, the contention is that in the March 02, 2020 polls, the phenomenon of ghost voting occurred as well as voter impersonation and other forms of voter fraud.
The Team viewed much of the exercise as a fishing expedition designed to gather data for a possible election petition and which resulted in considerable time being wasted during the recount. Furthermore, the net was cast extremely wide in the hope of at least making a small catch and at times the anticipated harvest ended in slim pickings. In only one observed recount of a ballot box was the number of queried serials confirmed as having voted in fact significant relative to the queried number.
The Team did not view the objections raised by the APNU/AFC as materially relevant to the recount of the ballot, though these objections based on the information provided by GECOM to the party agents, signalled the possibility of a padded voters list which GECOM as a body must deal with expeditiously. Moreover, we simply have no evidence as to who were the ultimate beneficiaries of the alleged “ghost voting” and voter impersonation.
Given the issue of transparency, the decision to provide an audio feed of the recount in every work station for public consumption no doubt contributed to the overall transparency of the process.
• Absence of Statutory Documents
One issue to emerge during the recount was the absence of sensitive material. For the Team, the combined absence of used counterfoils in conjunction with the absence of marked OLE’s in several work stations led to supervisors observing in their work station reports that they could not validate the votes cast. The absence of these statutory documents in the 29 ballot boxes in the face of what was an audit is troubling. However, the Team did not view their absence as fatal to the recount but pointed to the need for a serious investigation by GECOM. If, as the CEO constantly reminded the Team, the workers were well-trained, we indeed found it odd that such a significant number of boxes were so impacted.
Overall, during the process of the recount, the Team did not observe any bias in terms of election errors which may have occurred on poll day. At the level of the Work Station, we did not observe evidence of deliberate and purposeful intention to subvert the poll and the recount process (except for the excessive delays attributed to a number of factors), on the part of those who were charged with administering the recount.
The Team does not view the irregularities identified, amounted to sufficient grounds to invalidate the tabulation of the votes at the recount and therefore these irregularities DO NOT constitute sufficient grounds to challenge the integrity of the recount process. While there were some irregularities, and violations of the Gazetted Order and work processes as outlined by GECOM, these were insubstantial. We found no intentional miscounting of the ballots which would constitute an election fraud necessitating further action. During the recount, the Work Station staff worked diligently, under immense pressure to bring to a close the recount of the votes.
*********************
Delivery of the Last Ballot Box Daily
The Team was made aware of a decision to refrain from delivering ballot boxes to work stations from 5:30 p.m. This decision the Team viewed as an extremely irresponsible one given that there were so many small ballot boxes. Furthermore, in many work stations, the counting of the votes cast and reconciliation of boxes were conducted within a reasonable time frame. The rationale that there was a curfew in place we regard as a nonsense as the COVID-19 Task Force had granted GECOM an extended curfew period of up to 7:00 PM. In the event, the cumulative impact of this questionable decision was the wastage of hundreds of hours which could have facilitated a speedier resolution of the election impasse.
******************************
The Tabulation Centre, the hub of the recount exercise, was managed by the Supervisor Aneal Giddings who was perhaps the most authoritative supervisor that the Team encountered during the recount. There was little doubt who was in control of the centre and while Mr Giddings was open to criticisms, objections and questions, he always asserted his authority with respect at all times. He was however, quite firm and intolerant of behaviours which he saw as time wasting. Mr. Giddings was assisted by his deputy and an immediate staff of seven persons who were rotated. High commendations must be given to Mr. Giddings.
*********************************
• The Decision to Read the Observation Reports
A reading of ROPA makes absolutely no reference to the Observation Reports which became a focal point of the Recount process. Observation Reports are in fact administrative contraptions to chronicle miscellaneous issues and which if carefully used can derive great benefits to an Election Commission to identify possible problems and to undertake corrective measures. As it were, these reports became integral component of the recount process and an invaluable tool for those seeking to discredit the recount.
For some unfathomable reason a decision was taken by GECOM to not only display the observation reports during the tabulation of the SOR’s at the end of the day, but to read the contents of the observation reports with the identified serial numbers of the voters. While names were not called, anyone familiar with the OLE which were widely circulated throughout Guyana and on display at least a week before poll day and on poll day within their respective districts, could easily identify the voters.
Quite apart from the fact that the parties had ample time to study the OLE and engage in their investigations prior to poll day, the Team was appalled that an institution charged with the responsibility for the conduct of elections would in any way compromise the safety of the elector, not to speak of the violations of international norms regarding the ballot. The Team is cognizant of the fact that absolutely no proof was offered when the challenge was mounted, nor is it possible to determine how the electors voted, but the challenge to the elector’s right to participate in the elections and the easy identification of the voter is problematic for a variety of reasons.
We are buttressed in this position on the basis of International Public Law (IPL) which provides a number of obligations for democratic or integrity based elections and has resulted in the development of an acceptable framework for the conduct of credible elections based on a set of democratic standards.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is the most widely subscribed treaty guaranteeing participatory rights. Minimally, the political covenant establishes the three basic requirements and guarantees for the conduct of genuine (democratic) elections and the expressed intent of the will of the people as the basis for the selection of a government. Article 25 of the Covenant clearly states that:
Every citizen shall have the right and opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
a) participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the voters.
Additionally, Articles 2, 12, 14, 19, 22, and 26, address issues of process focus rights and individual rights and freedoms seen as vital to ensuring the will of the people.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) also provides core rights as it pertains to guarantees for the enjoyment of political rights and fundamental freedoms.
Guyana is a signatory to a number of instruments of IPL including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So too is Guyana a party to the U.N. Convention against Corruption.
As a result, in the conduct of elections, Guyana is bound by the provisions requiring certain political and civic rights which extend also to the rights of the will of the people to be secured in choosing their elected representatives.
The Team is therefore of the firm view that GECOM willingly and wittingly violated the rights of the Guyanese electorate in facilitating these requests and in permitting the national audio broadcast of the Observation Reports. Further, the reading of the Observation Reports with the mention of the serial number of voters in the country has the potential to expose the elector to harassment and quite possibly worse, and GECOM must be held accountable for such.
• The GECOM Chair
As a Team we are deeply sympathetic to the plight of the chair of GECOM who must walk a difficult road on a daily basis. We were fortunate to have had several audiences with the Chair who shared with us her frustrations with the Commission having to walk a very thin line between the two political camps. Retired Justice Singh who appeared to adopt a largely consensual approach in her leadership style seemed frustrated with the inability of the Commissioners to take decisions and conclude discussions. Instead she noted that on too regular a basis, issues which were well ventilated were revisited as the political party nominated commissioner attempted to position their respective political party.
Justice Singh seemed to be always amenable to the political parties and this too may have created additional pressures as they attempted to leverage further influence over the decision making of the Commission.
Behind the scenes there was constant manoeuvrings by parties and Commissioners as they attempted to manipulate the Chair of GECOM who is relatively new to the position having only been appointed to the post in 2019. For instance, one political party besieged the Chair with a score of letters alleging irregularities and demanding decisions from the Commission.
The Team applauds the Chair for her strength during this pressurized period. And we do say strength, despite the labelling of weak heaped upon her by Commissioners who were unable to get their view supported by the Chair who has the casting vote. We note that this labelling is driven primarily by self-interest.
There was certainly intense psychological warfare waged on the Chair but she remained resolute and determined to respect the legal framework. The team took note of the massive pressure exerted upon her from both forces internal to the Commission and external to the Commission. In many respects, the chair was invariably in the position of a referee in a very intense and hostile football match, with GECOM ultimately being played like the proverbial football. If any criticism can be levelled against the Chair, it may be her failure to appreciate her political resources and her reluctance to engage too much with the media
• The Commonwealth Advisor to GECOM
The Team met with the Commonwealth advisor to GECOM on several occasions. We were already quite familiar with the reputation of the former chair of the Ghana Elections Commission. In many ways Dr. Afari Gyan was the main support for the Chair of GECOM but unfortunately despite his immense experience in running elections in Ghana (which shares many political similarities with Guyana) and in assisting electoral bodies across Africa, he was ostracised by the Commission. Many of the problems experienced by GECOM in staging these recounts of the ballots were envisaged by Dr Afari Gyan but unfortunately, Commissioners were opposed to his advice. In our conversations with the senior advisor, he made it clear that he was well aware of the underlying hostility directed at him by some deep within GECOM.
Indeed, we found it prophetic that many of the developments which occurred during the recount were foreseen by Dr Afari Gyan whose attempts to forestall these fallouts were ignored by the Commission to their own detriment. On many occasions Dr. Afari Gyan cautioned the Commission about their chosen course of action as he did in relation to the language used for the timing of the recount itself and the number of work stations to be used. In this he was prophetic as the Commission had to resort to an amendment to the Gazetted Order to extend the allotted time and number of work stations. But this was just some of the basic issues, others were far more fundamental.
