A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) contends in court action it has filed that the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to change the boundaries of 37 constituencies 19 Local Authority Areas is unlawful.
APNU says that the move by GECOM violates Article 72 of the Constitution and it is therefore asking the court to quash the commission’s decision and prohibit it from holding the election, set for June 12, with the changed boundaries and reformulated constituencies.
Through its attorney Lyndon Amsterdam, APNU argues that GECOM must first comply with the provisions of Article 72 and as well as the Local Authorities (Elections) Act, before any attempt is made at changing the boundaries of any constituency.
A week ago, Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton had hinted at the court action being filed, stating also that GECOM had failed to address the charges of fraud APNU made about the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) nomination lists.
Norton had said that the lawsuit would seek to either postpone or altogether stop the local government elections from being conducted.
According to Norton, the resort to the court was because GECOM was unwilling to address concerns his party had raised relating to cases of alleged fraud in several nominations for the upcoming elections.
The suit was filed in the name of the opposition’s chief scrutineer Carol Smith Joseph against the Commission and its Chairperson, Justice (rtd) Claudette Singh. Arguing that the reconfiguration of the constituencies was done in breach of the constitution as well as the Local Authority (Elec-tions) Act, Joseph contends that should the election be conducted in those circumstances, “the prospects of success of the APNU will be severely prejudiced.”
In an affidavit in support of Joseph’s claim, Opposi-tion Commissioner Vincent Alexander said that Minis-ter of Local Government and Regional Development Nigel Dharamlall attempted to “unilaterally” change and/or establish the boundaries of 37 constituencies within 19 Local Authority Areas, without constitutional regard.
According to Alexander’s affidavit seen by this newspaper, at a statutory meeting of commission held on December 15th last, it was agreed that Dharamlall had overstepped his powers.
Against this background, Alexander said, the commission then decided that there was need for a field exercise to make recommendations for the possible changing or establishing of boundaries in the Local Authority Areas in some constituencies.
Alexander said Chief Election Officer (CEO) Vishnu Persaud was tasked with that exercise and to make recommendations to the commissioners regarding the changing and/or establishing of boundaries of constituencies; but was keen on pointing out the commissioners’ decision that the field exercise be guided by precedent.
Alexander’s affidavit said Persaud subsequently presented a report which indicated that his field officers “had found no problems” with Dharamlall’s proposed demarcation “because the law provided for such demarcation to be done by combining and/or sub-dividing Electoral Divisions.”
The affidavit said Persaud further contended that he had not found any documents or precedents and in view of the urgency of the matter, proposed that boundaries be demarcated in accordance with his recommendations which coincided with Dharamlall’s.
Alexander said that commissioners, by a consensus, determined that such an exercise should be conducted based on precedents and rejected the recommendations put forward by Persaud.
Alexander further deposed that he provided the relevant documentation of the precedents to Persaud which he said he could not find. These included reports showing discussions that took place in the past of how the field exercise should be undertaken.
According to Alexander, he also provided one Minute which showed that criteria and procedures had been approved but it however failed to document what was approved for the field exercise.
Alexander said that he had also furnished the Chairperson with a draft concept paper on delamination, principles and best practices for the delamination of constituencies, status reports on preparations for the holding of local government elections, operational guidelines for the demarcation of boundaries for constituencies in local authority areas, analysis of consultations.
Notwithstanding all of this, Alexander said, the CEO presented yet another report which bore none of the commission’s established precedent guidelines.
The Opposition Com-missioner said that he then raised with the commissioners, Persaud’s non-compliance with Article 72 of the Constitution in the conduct of the field exercise. However, by a majority vote, they rejectef his proposal for the use of the precedents.
Alexander said at that stage, it was the contention of the majority, that there was no record of the approval of the criteria and procedures for the demarcation of electoral constituencies.
He went on to say that the commission, also by a majority, voted to accept the CEO’s report approving the new demarcation proposed by Dharamlall.
Alexander said GECOM “has a duty and responsibility to make decisions in accordance with the laws of Guyana,” but added that with total disregard, it “arbitrarily and unilaterally changed or establish the boundaries.”
The matter has been set for hearing on May 30th at 9 am, before acting Chief Justice Roxane George SC.
Following lengthy delays, Local Government Elections were initially scheduled for March 13th of this year, but arguments over constituencies and how lists were to be extracted for the polls caused setbacks in the scheduled timeline.
It has always been Alexander’s contention that when reconfiguring a constituency, certain criteria must be assessed before setting a boundary. In this regard, he has said that it might require extending boundaries of part of an existing constituency due to population growth or shift.
More recently, the main opposition has been calling on GECOM to postpone the polls until their complaints of fraud are addressed.
A statement from APNU last week said that for GECOM to state that the allegations of forgery and voter impersonation were matters for the police and for election petitions, was “a gross dereliction of its constitutional responsibilities to the people of Guyana.”
Over the past few weeks, both the governing PPP/C and the main opposition APNU have contended that a number of names have been forged with several nominations for the upcoming elections.
