Civil Society group Article 13 has criticised Chief Election Officer (CEO), Vishnu Persaud over his response to questions on the elections expenses returns from the parties which contested the March 2020 General and Regional polls.
In a release on Saturday, Article 13 said it had written Persaud on December 14 last year congratulating him on his appointment and raising the question of the elections expenses returns. Article 13, which was formed last year, said it had adverted the CEO’s attention to sections 108 and 109 of the Representation of the People Act dealing with election finance regulation. The group said that it expressed the hope that Persaud “would take all steps necessary to ensure that the law is observed.”
Specifically, Article 13 had raised with Persaud the following:
1) The names of the political parties and their agents that have and have not submitted the Election expenses and declaration report required under s. 108.
2) In the case of non-compliance, particulars of any application made by any election agent under s. 110 of the Act which provides for the High Court “to make an order allowing an authorised excuse for the failure to submit the return or any declaration as the case may be or for any error or a false statement therein, as to the court seems just.”
3) The date you propose causing to be published in the Official Gazette the summary of the elections expenses returns and the time and place at which these returns and accompanying documents and election expenses declarations can be inspected.
4) The steps you propose taking against any person for non-compliance with the section which constitutes an “illegal practice” under s. 108 (5) of the Act.”
Article 13 said that in his response dated March 11, Persaud stated that he had carried out an extensive search in his Office and could not find any election expense report from the 2020 elections.
“And having said that there was no provision within the Representation of the People of the People Act which empowers the Chief Election Officer to compel any agent of any political party to fulfill their statutory obligation, Mr. Persaud proceeded to describe his response as a layman’s view and that a more `considered response would be provided when the recently appointed Legal Officer assumes office’”, Article 13 said.
The group said that it is “most disappointed” with the response from the CEO. It added that the Chairman of A New and United Guyana which contested the 2020 elections is on public record as stating that their party did submit an election expense report.
“This is not something which should easily escape the attention of the Chief Election Officer. Even if only one report was submitted, that information should have been gazetted as the law requires. As the nation engages in a debate on electoral reform, it is important that the Chief Election Officer plays his part in ensuring that the law is observed and violators are sanctioned”, Article 13 contended.
Article 13 charged that up to this point there has been a bid at the level of GECOM to ignore the election expenses report requirement of the Representation of the People Act. The group said that GECOM Chair Justice of Appeal (retired) Claudette Singh confirmed this in a letter to one of its members that GECOM had taken a decision not to operationalise that requirement of the Act.
Article 13 said it looks forward to receiving the CEO’s more “considered response” soonest.
