Dear Editor,
Commissioner Rohee has kept up with his letter writing on GECOM in an attempt to sway public opinion although much of what he writes is public misinformation and/or propaganda. His latest letter seeks to establish that GECOM`s systems cannot be breached. It is not my intention to dispute the various mechanisms that GECOM has in place, which are intended to prevent multi voting. However, I will simply pose the following questions:
● Why did the PPP/C nominated Commissioners, after the last elections, oppose an internal review of GECOM`s operations, when such a review is routine and provides an opportunity for GECOM to identify and remedy flaws/weaknesses that could have been uncovered due to the review?
● Why did the PPP/C nominated Commissioners object to the introduction of the electronic capture of fingerprints in the registration process and the use of electronic fingerprints (biometrics) for voter identification at the place of poll?
● In essence, why are the PPP/C nominated Commissioners objecting to measures that can enhance GECOM`s operations and ensure the integrity of its processes, while Rohee touts the absolute integrity of the system although valid questions related to the inhibition of multi voting remain unanswered?
I will now address Rohee`s eight (8) point diatribe: “APNU`s shenanigans at GECOM have failed, all is now set for LGE” At the outset it should be noted that most of the issues raised by the Opposition nominated Commissioners were reluctantly but eventually addressed. Addressing those issues have contributed significantly to GECOM`s proclaimed state of readiness, albeit the reluctance to address them resulted in the delays and pushing back of the possible date of the elections.
Rubbishing of Rohee`s eight points.
● The Opposition appointed Commissioners rightly objected to the use of Section 5(6) for the extraction of the Registers of Voters because the Official List of Electors does not provide the required information for the compilation of the Voters Registers for local government elections. Information that would allow for the registers to be local and constituency based are not available in the Official List of Electors.
● The APNU would have approach the court to ensure that the correct source is used for the extraction of the Registers of Voters for local government elections.
● The Local Authorities Elections Act clearly provide for voters to be “ordinarily resident”. A Claims and Objections exercise is the mechanism that provides for persons not “ordinarily resident” to be removed from the Register of Voters, while their names are retained on the National Register of Registrants.
● The CEO`s guidance to the Logistics Coordinator and subsequently to the Registration Officers, and not the Returning Officers as erroneously stated by Commissioner Rohee, had to be corrected. In the first instance, the Guidance Note merely required the Logistics Coordinator to verify the acceptability of the unlawful order of the Minister of Local Government by determining whether divisional boundaries had been violated. The second Guidance Note erroneously referenced the unlawful order, Order 50. That was subsequently corrected. The final Guidance Note did not provide for the application of criteria in the demarcation process as is provided for in Article 72 (2) of the Constitution.
● As far as I know, the APNU scrutineers were not withdrawn from the exercise. They stood down pending the rectification of the second Guidance Note. The exercise was hastily recommenced while they were standing down, thus their immediate presence was not feasible or facilitated. They subsequently participated in the flawed exercise.
●The objection to the CEO’s report is unapologetic, since the exercise, on which he was reporting, was not conducted in conformity with the provision to expunge people, not ordinarily resident, from the Register of Voters.
● Voluminous evidence exist to show that the Commission, over an eight month period in 2009, discussed the criteria to be used. A minute from that period documented that criteria had been approved. More importantly, there is extensive documentation to show the actual adoption and application of the discussed criteria, in 2010. The CEO had proceeded based on his own erroneous conclusion that there was no record referencing criteria. That was proven not to be the case, since the relevant documents were presented, after which the goal post was shifted to indicate that no such documents had been referenced in the minutes, albeit a minute did record that criteria had been approved. Reference to the provision of the Constitution on this matter was also ignored and the CEO`s unilateral and arbitrary approach was approved ex post facto.
● The Claims and Objections exercise that Commissioner Rohee objected to (see 1 above) was conducted in a manner that flies in the face of the intention of the law. Double standards were observed in its execution. This matter is still under scrutiny.
Clearly the Opposition appointed Commissioners raised valid concerns. Some were addressed beneficially to the integrity of the process. The proclaimed state of readiness for the elections is largely attributable to the objective contributions made by the Opposition appointed Commissioners. The delays which were experienced are attributable to the PPP/C appointed Commissioners, who doggedly pushed back on doing what is right.
Sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
