-broadcast of voters serial numbers heavily criticised
identify the voter.
“The team was appalled that an institution charged with the responsibility for the conduct of elections would in any way compromise the safety of the elector [and] violate international norms regarding the ballots,” they lament.
It was explained that while no proof of wrongdoing was offered when the challenge to a serial number was made nor is it possible to determine how the electors voted, the challenge to the electors’ right to participate in the elections and the easy identification is problematic since Guyana is a signatory to several instruments which guarantee the right to participate and the secrecy of the ballot.
Such instruments include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR).
Under a heading, GECOM: A problem the team noted that the Commission was not independent rather it was a “creature of political parties” which was the root of all its problems.
“The Commission does not act impartially given the partisan loyalty of the Commissioners… internal discord was acutely manifested in the public posturing of individual commissioners…which was on full and ugly display in the 2020 elections and its aftermath,” the team noted concluding that the structural independence of GECOM from the machinery of government does not therefore equate with impartiality.
Specific criticism was levelled against those commissioners who interacted with media and provided according to the team “illadvised...often contradictory statements.”
Complicit
GECOM Commissioners were accused of being complicit in the assault on the legitimacy and independence of that institution and the team noted that attempts were made to encircle the CARICOM Team in the tomfoolery as part of the psychological warfare being waged.
“The Team was particularly alarmed by some of the imprudent remarks made by some Commissioners to the various media outlets which in our opinion added to the tense political environment in the country and which unfortunately provided the public with a view of the Commission that any independent body would wish to avoid,” they stressed adding that the constant references to irregularities made by GECOM Commissioners for instance could not but have a deleterious impact on the legitimacy of a body of which they were a part.
Chairperson Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh was cautiously criticized for her failure to appreciate her political resources and her reluctance to engage with the media.
For the most part the team expressed sympathy for her position noting that in several interactions with them she expressed frustration with the inability of the Commissioners to take decisions and conclude discussions.
They said that behind the scenes intense psychological warfare was being waged against the chair who remained resolute as she was often reduced to a referee in a very intense and hostile football match.
The Commonwealth advisor to the Chair, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, was according to the team ostracized by the Commission as
Commissioners were opposed to his advice. Consequently several suggestions made by Gyan which would’ve mitigated issues encountered were ignored.
The team has concluded that to maintain GECOM in its present form would be a tragedy for the nation and people of Guyana.
They therefore proposed that a new commission which reflects broader societal interest and is designed to solicit not only greater democratic participation but impartiality be constituted.
This new Commission would be a non-partisan and professional body appointed on the basis of merit qualification. In selecting members attempts are to be made to refrain from the deliberate and conscious selection of individuals who are blinded by their political allegiances.
The team comprised Sylvester King, Deputy Supervisor of Elections of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Cynthia BarrowGiles, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies (UWI) and John Jarvis, Commissioner of the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission.