Dear Editor,
I am in an environmentally imposed bi-polar, schizophrenic or oxymoronic state as I experience simultaneous amusement and sadness at the responses to my letter, in relation to GECOM`s treatment of the APNU-AFC`s request for the extension of the period of Claims. In my letter I referred to the fact that the Chairperson, by virtue of her referral of the APNU-AFC`s request to the PPP/C, had ‘shown her hand or caused her slip to be shown’. I considered that referral to be a decision, albeit pro tem in relation to the matter at hand. To my amusement and sadness, there were three attempted responses to my letter, none of which responded to the content of my letter.
The three PPP/C nominated Commis-sioners responded to the Stabroek News` headline: “The GECOM Chair voted against an extension of claims”, rather than the content of my letter which referred to her decision to consult, with the other political parties, before coming to a determination. It did not mention that a decision was taken not to extend the period for Claims. It is unfortunate that persons vested with the responsibility for the conduct of an important institution such as elections can be so superficial and inattentive in their manner of conduct.
Unfortunately, GECOM, as if singing from the same song sheet, responded in like manner: “it must be categorically stated that the Commission took no such decision”. This GECOM statement is premised on their contention that “The Elections Commission (GECOM) has noted the content of a letter published in the Wednesday, September 14, 2022 edition of the Stabroek News” (author`s emphasis).
While, the PPP/C Commissioners may have responded to the headline and not noted the content, that in itself being reckless conduct, GECOM purports to have “noted the content” yet the response is to a machination rather than the content which stated: “This decision … has opted to have the PPP/C determine whether citizens can realize their rights”. Nowhere in my letter is there any reference to, or inference of, a decision taken, at the meeting of September 13, not to grant an extension of the period for Claims. GECOM`s position is nothing short of carelessness that might have been influenced by a predisposition.
The responses of the PPP/C nominated Commissioners and GECOM “so-called” are cause for concern, since their responses may well reflect their cognitive and professional levels, neither of which, in this instance, seems up to par for the conduct of public affairs. Elections is an extremely important public affair. It should also be observed that GECOM`s rare letter to the Press purported to speak on behalf of GECOM, when in fact it reflects the baseless contention of but some actors in GECOM. I hope that letter writer Shamshun Mohamed takes greater care with their pen, in future, rather than fingering the Press wrongfully, they afforded both sides a say. Let the public be the judge.
Sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
