Dear Editor,
It was on the following note; ‘GECOM is comatose as of 2020 when it comes to reviews and innovation,’ that Commissioner Vincent Alexander ended his letter to the editor recently published in mainstream media. Comatose people are known to be both asleep and unresponsive. In that regard, while Commissioner Alexander holds to his view that GECOM appears to be in the situation he so described, at the same time, he failed to recognize that his demands are in effect on life support. The basis for Commissioner Alexander’s labeling of GECOM’s fresh approach to its constitutional mandate since 2020 is essentially, because the Commission has rejected, for the time being, the political opposition’s four demands namely; electronic fingerprint identification, use of electronic biometric identification at the place of poll and abandonment of the so-called ‘bloated voters’ list.’
Commissioner Alexander’s criticism is without merit, but more importantly, has no basis in law. The Commissioner ignores completely the majority view advanced at commission meetings that any acceptance and implementation of the opposition’s four demands would be unconstitutional and illegal. Were the Commission to agree to the opposition’s demands, in effect it would mean embarking on a fresh house-to-house registration, the abandonment of the extant National Register of Registrants and the passage of new laws to give effect to the APNU’s ‘innovative’ measures to enable persons to be qualified to vote at an election. Furthermore, it is not true as Alexander claims, that the commission has been unresponsive or asleep in respect to these matters. The records will show that the Commission discussed, time and again each of the four opposition demands fully and exhaustively without reaching any agreement on any of them. Yet Alexander persists, not only in pushing the envelope containing the four demands but insisting that they be adopted and implemented notwithstanding the legal and other arguments advanced against their acceptance and enforcement at this time.
In this regard, it is disingenuous to claim that the Commission has refused to review or innovate in respect to matters that are consistent with its constitutional mandate. There have been several instances at commission meetings in preparation for the successfully held LGE, when opposition commissioners called for a review of certain matters that were eventually acceded to by the commission following advice received of the CEO, the DCEO, the Legal Officer and ultimately the Chair.
As far as innovation is concerned, while the Commission is free to consider innovative measures at an operational level it is not free to innovate within the legally and constitutionally mandated framework. It is for parliament to innovate by the enactment new laws to guide the work of the Commission. In that regard, as a result of recommendations adopted by the Commission since 2020, some innovative operational measures were initiated by the Commission with a view to ensuring the general conduct and supervision of free and fair elections in Guyana as was demonstrated in the just concluded Local Government Election.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee