Dear Editor,
A reputable jurist, Lord Denning, once stated that the ‘Law is an Ass’. That was stated around 1959, some sixty-four years ago. GECOM`s current disposition to the law reminds me of that statement and creates an image of GECOM riding the ‘ass’ to death, by virtue of the manner in which it conducts its affairs. Imagine, the contention is that an irregularity discovered in the process of the submission of a list of candidates can only be addressed in a Petition after the elections, if the irregularity was discovered after the Returning Officer approved the submission, albeit before the finalization of the preparation of the ballot papers and the conduct of balloting.
GECOM received submissions of lists of candidates/contestants in the upcoming local government elections. One of the conditions for the approval of those candidates is the submission of lists of supporters for each constituency candidate or for each proportional representation list. The supporters are normally listed along with their ID numbers and appended signatures. GECOM, in the persons of the Returning Officers (RO), has taken to accepting such lists although it is obvious that the listed individuals did not themselves append signatures. What is obvious, on sight, is that in a given instance one person signed against the listed names for the entire list. When confronted with this irregularity, the Commission by a majority vote, indicated that once the RO had signed off on the list, irrespective of any obvious malpractice, there is no redress available to the complainant except for a Petition after the election.
Here is a clear case of GECOM being unashamedly astride the ‘asses’. If all of the asses (cases) in the race were subjected to the said malady, the case of transparency (the application of the said rule to similar cases) might have been argued. What is blatant is that in the instance of the PPP/C`s submissions for the Woodlands-Bel Air NDC, irregular submissions were accepted and deemed beyond review because the RO had signed off (Editor, a copy of such a list is available). However, in the case of the community group in Wakenaam, the RO signed off on their submissions but subsequently rescinded the approval in response to complaints by signatories, who contended that they had not consented to be listed as supporters, albeit, they never questioned the authenticity of their signatures, on the list which was submitted (Editor, a copy of the original approval granted to the community group is also available).
In the instance cited, Woodlands-Bel Air being signed off, was given as the reason why the case was closed and could only be contested by way of a Petition after the election. However, in the Wakenaam instance, although the document had been signed off, the RO proceeded to rescind the approval in clear contradiction of section 49 (1) & (2): “no list of candidates shall be valid unless it has been approved by the returning officer” and “If it appears to the returning officer that a list of candidates is not defective … he shall approve it and affix thereto the symbol duly allocated by the Elections Commission”. That had been done. It should also be noted that the PPP/C appointed Commissioners along with the Chairperson are the ones who perpetrated this travesty of injustice.
It is ironical that this occurrence coincided with the submission of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into an aspect of the conduct of the 2020 elections. The report, inter alia, concluded that GECOM is politicized and as a consequence is inhibited from conducting free and fair elections.
Sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
