One week after the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) decided against an internal review of the March 2020 general and regional elections, the opposition-nominated Commissioners, again, submitted a motion calling for same.
On Tuesday when the Commission met, Com-missioner Charles Corbin tabled a motion seeking to have GECOM “commission its own independent review to gain a better understanding of the bases for the aforementioned allegations and occurrences and to consider if there are existing or potential weaknesses in the processes employed by GECOM for the conduct of elections.”
Last week’s decision by the Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh, was in relation to a previous proposal submitted by the Opposition in February. Singh had said that a review of the controversial elections would be the responsibility of an elections court and not the Commission. She said that it is important to distinguish between a review of GECOM’s processes in effectively conducting an election and an investigation into what actually transpired during a particular election. She reasoned that a review of GECOM’s processes in effectively conducting an election examines the effectiveness of the system that is in place to ensure that an election is carried out in accordance with the law, which may include the consideration of claims made in respect of a particular election to ascertain whether there are (potential) weaknesses in the system that need to be addressed.
She added that an investigation into what actually transpired during a particular election is to determine the truth of particular claims, leading possibly to a determination of the validity of an election.
Citing Article 163(1) of the constitution, the GECOM Chair reminded that High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine questions relating to the validity of an election.
In her written decision, the Chair proffered that “GECOM is not a court of law and therefore has no authority to determine whether an election was lawfully conducted, and no such power was conferred on it under Article 162 (1) (b). A perusal of Articles 162 and 163 shows that the Constitution clearly and sharply separates the functions of GECOM and the High Court respectively in matters of electoral laws. “The Commission does not have, and cannot clothe itself with, the powers of a Court of Law to examine and re-examine witnesses or to procure official documents to determine the truth of the allegations contained therein. Any such question can only be determined by way of an election petition filed in the High Court.”
According to Corbin’s motion, the 2020 elections were the subject of much controversy. He explained that the pre-election period involved numeric disparities between the actual eligible population and the electoral roll while the post elections tabulation of the results revealed a significant discrepancy between the number of ballots cast and the eligible number of persons who could have reasonably been expected to do so legitimately. His motion also submitted that during the recount a number of anomalies were placed on the record.
The motion further stated that GECOM has determined that the most it can do in this regard is to examine its processes to see whether there are gaps or weaknesses that make it possible for votes to be counted for persons who could not have voted. It added that allegations in relation to voter impersonation may have been anchored in the excess number of entries recorded in the electoral roll.
“…during the Recount, documents were submitted in support of some of the allegations of impersonation; AND WHEREAS during the Recount, numerous documents of significance could not be accounted for; AND WHEREAS the missing documents rendered the validation of the associated ballots impossible, AND WHEREAS the count in District Four became contentious and the subject of judicial review; AND WHEREAS many other untoward incidents were reported,” the motion states.
Corbin said that by virtue of the invocation of Article 162 of the Constitution and the Removal of Difficulties provision of the Representation of the People Act, GECOM acknowledged that difficulties had arisen, many of which were identified in the recount process. He added that while the Commission has acknowledged that some of the allegations were of serious nature, it has the mandate to ensure that they are addressed.
“…BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that recommendations be sought in an effort to improve on the methods and processes employed in the electoral system and to remove the bases for the possible reoccurrence of the maladies, procedural or otherwise, that occurred or may occur under the current electoral process,” the motion concludes.
The motion was seconded by fellow Opposition-nominated Commissioner Desmond Trotman.
GECOM will now have to debate and vote on the motion.
The motion comes even as President Irfaan Ali recently announced a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the elections. The Commission will be headed by retired Trinidad Justice of Appeal Stanley John and includes former Attorney General, High Court Judge and Acting Justice of Appeal in the Eastern Caribbean, Godfrey P. Smith SC; former Chair and Chief Elections Commissioner of India, Dr S. Y. Quraishi; and former Chancellor (Ag), of the Guyana Judiciary, Carl Singh.
However, the Opposition remains adamant that an internal review of GECOM’s processes is warranted and that the CoI cannot usurp the power of the elections court before which it has an election petition.
