Dear Editor,
I write to respond to the AFC’s call on, ‘GECOM to provide updates for improved electoral system’ published in S/N’s edition of 3/8/24; S/N editorial; ‘Safeguards Against Elections Skulduggery’ published on 12/8/24. S/N’s editorial piggybacked somewhat on the AFC’s statement of 3/8/24 that called on GECOM ‘to provide updates for improved electoral system.’ That said, I consider it necessary to respond to a host of queries, pontifications and speculations contained in the two publications which, if accepted by readers, would convey the impression that GECOM is unprepared for elections 2025. Since appointed as a commissioner of GECOM in August 2022, and with the knowledge and experience I accumulated (1984-1991) as to what occurred in the past and before GECOM arrived to where it is today, I have formed the opinion that save for mischievous and unlawful acts by humans, GECOM is capable of executing its constitutional mandate. However, like every government or constitutional body in any part of the world, the populace tend to be suspicious and distrustful of them.
The S/N editorial provided a useful reminder and stressed an undeniable fact that ‘the five-month impasse that delayed the transition in governments had nothing at all to do with a bloated list of voters or malpractices at polling stations’ but that ‘It was all about a rearguard effort hatched at the Kingston offices of GECOM and unleashed at the Ashmin’s Building where the District Four Returning Officer was accommodated.’ And as if to belabor the point, the editorial went on to state, ‘It (GECOM) may feel that it has greater control of the process having managed to engineer some of its preferred choices into key positions at GECOM. That is, however, of no comfort to the ordinary voter who wants to be convinced that the secretariat and the people at the Kingston HQ and the District Four office will comport themselves with honesty and integrity.’
As regards the question of ‘comporting the ordinary voter that GECOM will fulfill its constitutional mandate with honesty and integrity,’ I know that the Commission has plans to launch a Civic and Voter Education strategy that will place specific focus on the rebuilding of trust and confidence in the Commis-sion and its Secretariat to conduct credible elections. To this end, ads have been placed in mainstream media inviting suitably qualified persons to apply for a post to head the C&VE activities of GECOM. S/N’s editorial was keen to alert that; ‘The elections bell has clearly been rung but the public cannot be convinced that the GECOM Secretariat has been immunized from malign behaviour.’
Just in case it has been forgotten, all should be reminded about the new laws that are now in place to deter the type and level of unlawful acts and skullduggery committed in 2020 by senior Secretariat Staff, aided and abetted by some members of the then Commission. In this regard, I have no doubt that any sleeping or rearguard elements embedded within GECOM’s machinery and who may be either hatching or bent on unleashing illegal acts to rig the process must know that if they do the crime they will have to do the (jail) time. Undisputedly, the whole of Guyana and it’s diaspora are aware of the machinations that occurred at the Ashmin’s building where ‘clear attempts to falsify the election results’ were perpetrated by a political cabal in cahoots with their partners embedded at the then GECOM.
And while it is important to remind of that sordid attempt to rig the results of the elections, we must never forget the traumatic experience and willful shenanigans executed by the APNU+AFC who love to talk about upholding the guardrails of democracy but who at the same time sought to tear down those very guardrails by initiating an illegal and unconstitutional process with a view to imposing a nonconsensual chairman at GECOM. So when we come to parleying over the ‘type of Chair the country or its people need’ we should never forget what the nation went through to identify a Chair for that body since given the extant political climate, the dangers that lie ahead should not be underestimated when it comes to choosing ‘the type of chair the country or its people need.’ As regards the editorial’s observation that; ‘It is worthwhile pointing out that the PPP/C-nominated commissioners also failed to prevent the corruption of the process,’ I leave that to the commissioners concerned to address.
S/N is quite in order in positing that ‘With expanded means of communications with the hinterland, what GECOM should be focused on is a declaration of results as early as possible after the close of polls.’ In that regard, clearly lessons have been learnt from past experiences. With that in mind, I have little or no doubt that GECOM will focus on ensuring publication, as soon as possible, of the declaration of the results in line with the new statutory provisions for Statement of Poll by Statement of Poll publication of the results of the elections in real time. My understanding is that the results declared by the ten (10) Returning Officers are, in fact statutory declarations of the results for the respective Electoral Districts. I was pleased to note that notwithstanding the decision by the commission to consider the introduction of biometrics in the electoral process, S/N’s editorial referenced the system utilized by GECOM for the 2020 elections stating it ‘functioned marvelously thanks to the industrious and heroic work carried out by the hundreds of polling day workers to enable voters to cast their ballots, for these to be counted, results posted up outside polling stations and the relevant documents transmitted to the district returning officers.’
On top of that, the editorial was quite emphatic in pointing out; ‘That system functioned marvellously and does not require biometrics or cameras to create grounds for upheaval.’ S/N also referenced the European Union (EU) follow-up mission 2023 report. Mention was made to the effect that; ‘the present electoral list remains problematical’ and that ‘the opposition is advocating that a new voter register be compiled through house-to-house registration combined with electronic capture of fingerprints, as well as advocating the introduction of biometric (fingerprint) verification of voters at polling places).’ As far as I am aware, there is no law that currently provides for the conduct of House-to-House Registration. Moreover, my understanding is that there is strict compliance with all statutory provisions for sanitizing the National Register of Registrants (NRR) and, by extension, the voters lists extracted therefrom. Again, as I pointed out earlier, the issue of biometrics is before the commission for discussion, however, I am flummoxed as to why this information was not provided to the Opposition Parties by the GECOM Commissioners who are aligned to them.
On the question of the voters’ register, the editorial added; ‘The PPP/C government, on the other hand, prefers to improve the existing voter register through extended continuous registration and somewhat improved procedures for the removal of deceased registrants. We shall see if the opposition will go to, and hope to win an election with the current list because the PPP does not want it changed!’ To support its view, the editorial reminded that; ‘The European Union (EU) Final report recommended a thorough update of the decade-old register well ahead of the next election cycle, based on inclusive consultations and political consensus’. We were also reminded that ‘The Caribbean Community 2020 recount group suggested that such a cleaning of the list should be the minimum condition before the 2025 elections.’ In this connection, it is apposite to recall that the exercise called for by the EU and CARICOM is an ongoing one which commenced in 2022. Since then, four (4) Claims and Objections exercises have since been conducted.
The thread worn and high-sounding views advanced by the AFC that; ‘there is no longer any public confidence in the integrity of the electoral list,’ that ‘a plan should be outlined how the bloated list will be handled for the next election’ and that ‘updating the voters list is ‘crucial’ for ensuring the integrity of the electoral process’ is a clear indication that the AFC is like a ship at sea without a digital compass especially since that party is represented on the commission. From my recollection, GECOM took pains to point out the measures it has in place, as well as new measures that are yet to be put in place to ensure that the attempt to rig in 2020 is not repeated. And a proposal to install cameras at Polling Stations to record all activities therein on Election Day ought not to be dismissed until such time it is fully discussed and a final determination is made.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
Commissioner, GECOM