GECOM is capable of executing mandate

Aug 15, 2024 Letters

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 Skullduggery’ published on 12/8/24; Henry Jeffery’s ‘Elections skullduggery’ published in K/N on 12/8/24 and Oscar Dolphin’s ‘Disappointed GECOM did not address most recent allegation of electoral fraud,’ carried in the K/N’s August 13, 2024 edition.

S/N 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 four publications which, if accepted by readers, would convey the impression that GECOM is unprepared for elections 2025. Since my appointment 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 the human factor, 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 Ashmins building where the District Four Returning Officer was accommodated.’

And as if to belabour 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 ‘comforting 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 Commission 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 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 Ashmins 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 that allegation.

‘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 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 currently that 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 of ‘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.

In so far as Henry Jeffrey’s ‘Elections Skullduggery’ dated August 11, 2024 and published in the Kaieteur News is concerned, in the main his column merely regurgitated past events and falsified pronouncements not worthy of response. Jeffrey documented a number of speculative points and unsubstantiated comments which he sought to peddle as facts.  In this regard, I wish to point out four such instances.

First, he posited that ‘Rigging elections by way of a bloated list has now become the modus operandi in Guyana and is the major reason why only just over 20% of the population is certain they are not manipulated;’ Secondly, he pleaded, ‘Please spare me the nonsense about foreign monitors certifying elections;’

Thirdly, he claimed; ‘The former GECOM Chief Elections Officer claimed that there were some 4,686 impersonations and other irregularities;’ And finally, he a resurrected a number of unsubstantiated charges made by one Malcolm Harripaul against GECOM regarding the 2011 General and Regional Elections.

But there are certain basic flaws in all four of Jeffery’s contestations. First, he was unable to present a scintilla of evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim that ‘rigging elections by way of a bloated list has now become the modus operandi in Guyana.’ Secondly, he did not even attempt to give a decent level of credibility to this blatant falsehood. Thirdly, he failed to call into question and to admit that it is the same ‘bloated list’ that was used for the 2015 elections that brought the APNU+AFC to power.

Thirdly, it appears that Jeffery has joined the with those despise the presence of international election observers because ‘they interfere in Guyana’s domestic affairs.’ His position in this matter seems to be premised on the unified stance the APNU+AFC adopted towards the International Observers who challenged and exposed the rigging of the 2020 elections.

Finally, as regards the claim about 4,686 cases of impersonations and other irregularities which he ascribed to the former Chief Election Officer, is Jeffery aware that no evidence has been provided to support even one single case?  The coincidence of Jeffery’s claim with that of the APNU+AFC is so transparent that any visual impaired person can see.

Editor, I now turn to certain concerns raised by one Oscar Dolphin in his letter carried in the August 13, 2024 edition of S/N titled “Disappointed GECOM did not address most recent allegation of electoral fraud.’

In case Mr. Dolphin missed it, he should get a copy of GECOM’s last press release which showed the numerous measures that are in place to guard against the committal of skullduggery. Those measures notwithstanding, Mr. Dolphin in his recollection of what transpired at the 2020 elections, sought assurances about the accurate tabulation and declaration of the results of the elections.  In this regard, I invite Mr. Dolphin to refer to that legislation enacted in December 2022, to ensure that the unlawful acts perpetrated by GECOM Senior staff at the 2020 elections are never repeated.

From my recollection and for the benefit of Mr. Dolphin, the legislation include (i) enabling the appointment/accreditation of Party Agents to work alongside each Deputy Returning Officer to ensure the secured movement of Statements of Poll; (ii) public display of each Statement of Poll (SoP) on a display screen to all present to see while the votes recorded on the SoP are being tabulated;(iii) real time public display of the inputting of the votes recorded on each SoP simultaneously as the SoP itself is being displayed, (iv) adequate accommodation to ensure that duly accredited Party Candidates/Agents and Observers can observe the tabulation process without hindrance;(v) treat with valid concerns from any Party Candidate/Agent pertaining to the authenticity and accuracy of SoPs while they are on display;(vi) the highly populated Districts 3, 4, and 6 have now been split into 3, 4 and 3 Sub-Districts respectively to facilitate earlier tabulation of the results for these Districts;(vii) publication of all SoPs, on the GECOM website;(viii) upon completion of tabulation, immediate declaration of the results of the elections for each District by the respective Returning Officers, and (ix) subject to the completion of declaration of the results by the ten Returning Officers, the Chief Election Officer shall, immediately thereupon, collate the results for the General and for the Regional Elections and submit the results for the entire country to the Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

Commissioner, GECOM

• AFC, edition, electoral system, GECOM, Henry Jeffery