The recount order must be executed to the letter
Dear Editor,
The National Recount exercise allows for this nation to resolve whatever question exists about the election process in a peaceful manner. This is necessary in order for a peaceful outcome. The Order gazetted by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on 4th May, 2020 to realise this exercise must be executed to the letter.
Refer to https://www.gecom. org.gy/assets/docs/Press_Release s/2020/Gazetted_Order_Recount _5May2020.pdf
Any deviation from the Order could not only create legal challenges but chaos in the process and undermine the confidence the electorate vests in GECOM to bring closure to the 2020 General and Regional Elections. It has not escaped attention efforts on the part of persons to seek to deviate from the Order. The Commission, in part or whole, cannot be caught seeking to compromise the process, irrespective of what may likely to be revealed now or in future. The same goes for the Secretariat.
Observing from a distance it is not lost on me efforts by political forces, notably Anil Nandlall, wanting to dictate the direction GECOM should or should not go inspite of an existing legal document that guides the present operation. Further, his insistence that the recount must only be about the ballot and not all the Order provides for should not be condoned.
The Commission headed by Justice Claudette Singh and Secretariat by Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield must stand firm. For singularly and together they will be held accountable by the people for ensuring strict compliance to the Order. It cannot be over emphasised that for democracy to stand GECOM cannot fail.
Friday evening, Commissioner Sase Gunraj’s uncalled for behaviour and disrespect to the media corps when a member dared ask a question pertaining to the Order and whether compliance is being observed was troubling. What is the reason for him being this belligerent? Is it to give the impression that he is victim, fighting, angry, desperate or is part of an intimidatory tactic of anyone who dares to question? Is he saying, don’t ask any question, don’t challenge the accuracy of anything he says because he is the commissioner and lawyer and whatever he says should be accepted as gospel and reported as such?
The media have a right to question particularly when they have access to information (as per gazetted order) and are being told something different. Their role is to bring us the information as the process unfolds, to interview persons and ask questions consistent with the events at hand. As society’s watchdog they must continue to discharge their duties fearlessly. These workers must continue to seek truth from members of the commission and secretariat, and all who present themselves to be interviewed.
GECOM doesn’t work for the political parties. GECOM works for all of us and we must all ensure the agency does what’s right by us. GECOM must remain an independent arbiter on behalf of the people and ensure the completion of the present exercise consistent with the Order.
As an aside, it is noticed some persons while being interviewed are displaying disregard for COVID-19 safety precautions by removing their masks or not properly wearing them (covering the nose and mouth). They ought to know better. In this environment and risk associated with spread of this deadly virus this is not the time for vanity. It is also disrespecting to self and others to remove your mask for you not only heighten the chance of contracting and spreading the virus but putting at risk the lives of those who are obeying the safety precautions.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
Day 2 over day one showed a 60% increase in the number of boxes and a 50% increase in the number of votes recounted while day 3 over day 2 had a 10% increase in the number of boxes and an impressive 41% increase in the number of votes recounted. It appears that the low numbers of boxes and votes on day 1 was mainly due to the delayed start to clarify and resolve some basic details of processes. It is probably too early to say whether and how far this is the beginning of a trend which would influenced by resources, the learning curve and the fatigue factor. GECOM has a large pool of employees and seemingly unlimited funds from which to draw and to rotate staff.
Among the Coalition agents are some paid national and regional public servants, including two ministers, two public officers and one seconded union President. This is such a disgraceful misuse of taxpayers’ money that should spark anger and resentment, but that is an aside. From the other side, agents of the newer parties and the PPP/C come from their party cadres. The number of domestic observers has been reduced significantly by GECOM because of COVID–19 social distancing rules placing a heavy burden on the volunteers some of whom will need to re- acclimatise to sunlight, get home at 8 o’clock in the evening and are back on the road at 6:15 AM next day. They are aware too of the additional responsibility they bear as a result of the far fewer number of international observers: the Carter Center has effectively been shut out for now, the OAS is now represented by a single individual while the Commonwealth Secretariat could not observe the recount. Those domestic observers are indeed Guardians of Democracy, some of them like Kian Jabour and Jonathan Yearwood, doubly so.
We recall that GECOM had projected 25 days for the recount, so widely aspirational that it sounds like fantasy. Of course, everyone or perhaps most persons would like to see the count conclude early and I myself had predicted the number of counting days to be 47, based on an estimate of 9,600 votes counted per day with a smooth running process. That process is determined not only by GECOM personnel but by the process which is set out in section 87 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) and the challenges made by Party representatives in the recount.
The process is turning out to be anything but smooth or in accordance with the law. Unfortunately, the fears I had expressed in the media about frivolous objections being raised are coming to pass after the GECOM Chairman’s support of an unlawful process designed to shape the recount. Section 89 (2) of the
ROPA expressly prohibits the “open[ing] of the sealed packets containing tendered ballot papers, marked copies of the official list of electors or part thereof or counterfoils of used ballot papers.”
One can ask why Ms. Claudette Singh, a former jurist, would allow an illegal process to take place. She has clearly stood on the side of the APNU+AFC Commissioners to misuse the text and intent of section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act of 2002. This section clothes GECOM with the power to take certain acts where “any difficulty arises in connection with the application of the Act or the Representation of the People Act ….” The action by Singh and the Commissioners has in fact done the opposite: it has facilitated the introduction of difficulties towards the goal of the Government Commissioners and senior officers of GECOM to have the elections fraudulently declared in favour of Granger and the APNU+AFC Coalition.
From my conversations with persons present at the count, it is clear that the APNU+AFC Coalition has been using the latitude of the relaxation of section 89 (2) to carry out an audit which only weeks ago their lawyers were strongly arguing in court was a matter for an election petition. The Coalition representatives, clearly working in unison, have been raising the same kinds of questions in each counting stations: are bringing travel and migration data into the process suggesting collusion among the APNU+AFC Coalition, GECOM and the Immigration Service; wanting to examine the serial numbers of votes cast by reference to Polling Station data; and challenging decisions by GECOM staff and party agents in the Polling Stations. Some of these violate the whole principle of the secrecy of the vote but as the count progresses and the loss by the Coalition becomes more imminent, I will not be surprised by even more absurd antics, attempts and actions.
Where do I now stand on the completion of the recount date? With the usual caveats, the benefit of three days of recounts and a net 15 % improvement in efficiency, the count can be completed in the first half of July. After next week’s recounts are in, I will be in a position to give a more accurate projection, plus or minus two days.
We are about to enter the eleventh week following the March 2 elections. We still have a long way to go for the recount to be completed and hopefully, the return to some normalcy. Claudette Singh, Mingo, Lowenfield, Alexander and Granger with an average age in excess of seventy-five years should just pause, if they have that in them, to consider the consequences of their action to the young people of this country.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram