Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...Letters...

Gecom met the legal requirement over tabulation of SOPs which Kumar said was not met

Dear Editor,

The retirement of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission and its public announcement has occasioned another flurry about Gecom, in the media. Joining that flurry was Mr Neil Kumar who made three assertions, among others (‘The public deserves an answer on fake statements of poll’ SN, March 4).

He asserted that: 1. “the election results were by law supposed to be verified by the information technology tabulation and the corresponding manual tabulation. However none of this was done”. 2. “Guyanese must now demand that Gecom tell us how many fake SOPs were discovered. This information must be brought out so that we could know the specific areas and the presiding officers that were involved in the rigging of the 2015 elections.” 3.”the former Chairman and the Chief Elections Officer of the Guyana Election Commission should be held responsible for their actions [failing] to investigate the fake statements of poll.”

The first observation which I wish to make is that whosoever’s attempt it was to corrupt the system with fake statements of poll, did so on the heels of Mr Boodhoo and the Commission’s misappropriation of a Linden constituency seat in 2006 (an AFC seat was appropriated to the PPP/C) and Mr Boodhoo’s attempt to pass off a fictitious result in 2011 (he sought to allocate the one seat majority to the PPP/C rather than to the opposition to which it rightfully belonged). The fake statement of polls in 2015 continued the corrupt trend of 2006 and 2011.

Of interest is that the now vocal Mr Kumar and his comrades-in-arms were deafening in their silence in 2006 and 2011. That attitude defies any claim that their interest is free and fair elections. It clearly shows that their singular concern is being declared the winner at all costs.

That contention is further fortified by Mr Kumar’s three concerns. The fact of the matter is that Gecom’s IT division, which was fully operational in 2006 and 2011 when electoral fraud was perpetrated and attempted on the respective occasions, was shut down in 2015 when it was discovered that fake statements had found their way into the system and into the IT unit for the tabulation of the results. What nails Mr Kumar’s fabrication is that in addition to the manual calculations, the CEO resorted to other computers for the purpose of computing the results as required by law, and in so doing met the legal

requirement, which Mr Kumar falsely claimed was not met.

By requesting information on which statements of poll were faked as the basis for identifying the “specific areas and the presiding officers that were involved in the rigging of the 2015 elections”, it is logical to conclude that Mr Kumar knows at which stage in the process the fakes entered the system, although his party would have collected statements at every polling station and did not challenge any of the statements used for tabulating the results at the district counting centres, yet he concludes that they were from specific polling stations.

If the statements entered the system at the points that Mr Kumar contended that they did, how could he accuse Dr Surujbally and Mr Lowenfield of actions that allowed the infiltration, which by his contention took place at polling places where Dr Surujbally or Mr Lowenfield were not present or in direct control.

Let it be known that the discovery of fakes was done at the Central Command Centre after the statements would have been included in the tabulation of the IT unit.

Mr Kumar has successfully spun his own web, which in turn has entrapped him and exposed his fabrications, which he purports to be the truth. He however seems to be a stranger to the truth.

Yours faithfully, Vincent Alexander Gecom Commissioner