Legally, Claudette Singh has no choice but to make a declaration based on the recount

Dear Editor,

With atypical speed, GECOM Chair Claudette Singh distanced herself from the unfortunate statement by (GECOM) Commissioner Sase Gunraj that purported to convey the Chairman’s views on the recurrent, outlandish claims by the APNU+AFC and its spokespersons such as Aubrey Norton and James Bond. By contrast, the Chairman appears unperturbed by the almost daily pronouncements by Gunraj’s counterpart Vincent Alexander and by members of the public concerned about the descent of GECOM into what seems to be a criminallyminded enterprise involving fraud among senior Government functionaries, the APNU, the PNCR and the AFC powerfully enabled recently by the COVID–19 Task Force.

If Singh was as concerned about the constitutional duty and the reputation of GECOM, instead of “holding it in abeyance”, she would have called for an internal investigation into Mingo’s out-of-reality declaration on the District 4 results. I have never seen a judge or retired judge who treated a transparent, barefaced fraud with such deference. Surely, Singh cannot be ignorant of the evidence of Mingo’s fraud and its elevation by Chief Election Officer Lowenfield. Yet she remains mysteriously silent on what is effectively a fraud on GECOM itself.

Claudette Singh was a Puisne Judge from about the mid-eighties, and up to her appointment as GECOM Chair she was still in public service – well over four decades. She was appointed Chair in July 2019 – less than one year ago. Yet, she has she has managed to draw more attention to herself in the latter period than in all the decades serving the country in a legal capacity. Sadly for her, most of the attention has been negative. Worse, it has been largely self-inflicted. It is not that Claudette Singh was wholly on one side or the other: it is that some of her positions serve to confuse while others defy common sense, logic and basic principles.

Take for an example the recurrent and sometimes fictitious claims at the recount made by APNU+AFC agents like Coretta McDonald and Ganesh Mahipaul. To Mahipaul’s credit, if that is allowed, he admitted that his claims of dead and absent voters were based on hearsay information. Yet Claudette Singh’s GECOM is prepared to entertain those and similar allegations. On the other hand, McDonald, whose conduct at these recounts does the premier trade unions umbrella organisation no credit, has been more shameless, calling out fictitious box numbers at her Recount Station. Again much time was unnecessarily consumed in recording her fiction. A self-respecting Chairman on seeing such a pattern by whoever, should have convened a meeting of the Commissioners to set guidelines on how complaints are to be addressed and to prevent hindrances to the early completion of the recount. Instead, Singh has committed to affording those mischievous and made-up claims “considerable deliberations and decisions at the Commission”.

Singh and the Commissioners must surely be aware that the so-called representations and challenges by the APNU+AFC are further frustrating the achievement of the statutory limitation for the declaration of the election results - fifteen days from the date of the elections - and its own timeframe of twenty-five days for the duration of the recount. GECOM ought to have reiterated the statutory parameters of a recount, the principle regarding complaints of a general nature such as allegations of impersonation, the respective roles and functions of GECOM and those of the High Court in matters dealing with the