The A New and United Guyana (ANUG), Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) and The New Movement (TNM), which contested the 2020 elections, utilized section 22 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) for the first time in Guyana’s history and wrote to the Chief Election Officer informing him that they have “joined” their lists. The section provides that two or more lists of candidates can be “joined” for the distribution of seats, but not votes. The lists so joined are called a “combination of lists.” The media baptized them as “the joinder parties.”
A Memorandum of Understanding between them provided that if any seats were obtained, they would be proportionately distributed according to votes earned. The parties together gained one seat from a combined total of 5,214 votes. The parties agreed to share the one seat in proportion to the votes received by each. Since the LJP won the most votes, 2,657, its leader, Lenox Shuman, took up the seat for the agreed time. ANUG’s turn was next with 2,313 votes. It agreed that TNM should take the next turn as it was entitled to serve in the National Assembly for only three months having won only 244 votes; if elections were called early, it would lose its opportunity. Dr. Asha Kissoon, who represents TNM, took up the TNM’s seat in the National Assembly and in an act of stunning infamy, has since refused to resign, the three months having long expired.
GECOM has now announced that it made an error in not advising the Speaker that since LJP had the highest remainder, or largest surplus, of votes, 2,657, it was, by itself, entitled to a seat. Therefore, upon the resignation of Lenox Shuman, the seat should have gone to the LJP. GECOM arrived at this incorrect conclusion because it omitted to consider the provisions of ROPA in relation to the allocation of seats for a combination of lists.
In relation to the allocation of votes to contesting political parties, one sub-section of section 97 of ROPA provides that the votes cast at elections shall be divided by the number of seats resulting in an “electoral quota.” The votes cast for each list shall be divided by the electoral quota and the remaining votes shall be known as the “surplus votes.” The list with the largest number of surplus votes shall be entitled to any unallocated seat – second largest, second allocated seat, if any, and so on.
But there was a “combination of lists” that gained 5,214 votes. Another sub-section of section 97 of ROPA requires that seat allocation, where there is such a combination of lists, has to be based on the total votes obtained by the combination. LJP, being one of the combination, is not entitled to an individual allocation of a seat or seats. It’s the combination that is entitled.
This principle is given material effect by section 97(4). It states: “…a combination of lists shall be treated as one list.” Sub-section (5) states: “The seats allocated to a combination of lists shall be allocated among the lists comprised in the combination in accordance with sub-sections (2) and (3), the electoral quota for that purpose being the whole number found by dividing the total number of votes cast for the combination of lists by the number of seats allocated to the combination.” This clearly means that the totality of votes for the combination of lists must be taken into account in calculating the number of seats to which the combination is entitled.
Therefore, the Speaker did not make a mistake. He acted correctly in offering Lenox Shuman’s vacant seat to the combination of lists. The combination lawfully nominated Asha Kissoon.
GECOM now claims that it ought to have properly advised the Speaker. If GECOM sees itself as the Speaker’s legal advisor as regards seats in the National Assembly, what is preventing GECOM from advising the Speaker to declare the seat being occupied by Asha Kissoon to be declared vacant. Article 156(3)(c) of the Constitution provides that a member of the National Assembly shall “cease to be a member” if the representative of the list, after observing specific requirements, issues a notice of recall to the member and provides a copy to the Speaker. The list representative of the TNM has done so. (The detailed particulars are set out in my article “Dr. Asha Kissoon is a fraud with no legitimacy as a Parliamentarian” of July 14, 2024). According to Article 156(4) the Speaker “shall declare” the seat to be vacant. But the Speaker has not fulfilled this constitutional mandate by which he is legally bound. And GECOM has been silent on this matter of a grave constitutional violation relating to representation in the National Assembly, the foremost democratic institution in the land. If there was an obstacle, legal or otherwise, one would have expected either or both to promptly say so.
The situation is not lost as GECOM appears to think. Under the above provisions, upon GECOM advising the Speaker that Asha Kissoon’s seat be declared vacant, GECOM can then advise the Speaker to invite the LJP representative to nominate a replacement in accordance with the view it has announced.
(This column is reproduced with permission fromRalph Ramkarran’s blog, ww.conversationstree.gy)