Dear Editor,
GECOM Commissioner, Mr Vincent Alexander seems bored, if not disillusioned with his tenure at the Commission. Apparently, things are not going his way. To overcome this apparent self-generated boredom and disillusionment, the Com-missioner would ventilate his frustration from time to time, by making forays into mainstream and social media from where he would level unfounded criticisms at GECOM hoping to pressure the body to return to the post 2020 period.
In his latest foray, Mr Alexander bemoans what he describes as ‘the slothful process in filling the post of Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO).’ He went on to complain that the Commission’s schedule for the holding of Local Govern-ment Elections (LGE) has `been affected by a number of snafus, missteps and misadventures.’ (SM&A’s)
Listed among Mr Alexander’s SM&A’s were the following asseverations; the ‘unlawful gazetting’ of boundaries of new and reconfigured constituencies; the Chair and CEO’s ‘illegal endorsement’ of that ‘illegality’; ‘the reclamation and execution to reverse’ its actions; ‘refusal to follow due process in the demarcation of boundaries;’ ‘failure to conduct the Claims and Objections process in the required manner’; and ‘wrong procedures in determining whether a person is ordinarily registered in a particular constituency or not entitled to vote in the particular constituency.’
A careful examination of the implications of every one of Mr Alexander’s SM&A’s, were they to be realized, would show a single and deliberately obtuse objective, to abort the holding of LGE and in so doing, disrupt the general but more particularly, the local democratic process in Guyana.
In responding to Commissioner Alexander’s missive that reeks with all the elements that would make Guyana stand still, one cannot help discerning his battle to overcome the moral hazards facing him. In the circumstances, Mr Alexander conveniently failed to mention the number of stumbling blocks that were placed along the way by his Party with a view to achieving their objective; these include;
1. Objection to the use of the provision of Section 5(6) of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000 to extract the Registers of Voters from the existing Official List of Electors.
2. Approaching the court to block the use of the Registers of Voters that were extracted from the existing Official List of Electors.
3. Insistence that a Claims and Objections Exercise must be conducted to prepare Registers of Voters for Local Government Elections, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5(6) of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000.
4. Multiple Objections to the Guidance provided by the CEO to the Returning Officers for the reconfiguration of Constituencies.
5. Withholding of Scrutineers participation in the process of reconfiguration of Constituencies.
6. Objection to the CEO’s Report on the field exercise that was conducted by Registration Officers to reconfigure, where applicable, constituencies in accordance with the provisions of Order No, 39 of 2022.
7. Insistence that the Commission had approved criteria approved by the Commission whereas there is no record that such criteria had been used in the reconfiguration of constituencies in accordance with the provisions of Order No, 39 of 2022.
8. That Objections denied during the recently concluded Claims and Objections exercise were not done in compliance with the statutory provisions.
Notwithstanding the vacuous nature of the above matters raised by the opposition at GECOM, the Chairman under all circumstances, exercised admirable patience. And when it became obvious that the exchange of views on anyone of Alexander’s contentious SM&A’s produced diminishing returns, the Chair, with the hope of achieving a consensual decision would instruct the CEO to investigate what Mr Alexander claimed to be either a snafu, a misadventure or a misstep.
An excellent example of the APNU’s prevarications at GECOM can be found in its efforts to ransack the CEO’s work plan for the holding of LGE which suffered over ten revisions before it was finally approved for implementation.
Consequently, following extensive, time-consuming research by the CEO, together with Secretariat staff at GECOM and at times, pointless and superfluous deliberations at the level of the Commis-sion, it was transparent enough for all to recognize that the APNU’s objective was to push back further the date for LGE, which the political opposition do not seem to want at this time
The APNU’s shenanigans at GECOM have all failed. We are a mere two months away from June 12, 2023 the date set by the Minister of Local Government for the holding of LGE. GECOM is moving full speed ahead in fulfillment of its constitutional mandate and electors in their respective constituencies are now being sensitized by GECOM and stakeholders that it is imperative for them to go out to vote with their conscience as their guide.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee