‘Crucial meeting of GECOM today’

AS on many previous occasions, Commissioners of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) will be heading into what could possibly be their last meeting prior to a declaration, in spite of their disparate views on what should be done.

Ultimately, what will become of the meeting lies in the hands of GECOM Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, who has thus far received the report of the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, based on the declarations made in March by the Returning Officers in the 10 electoral districts.

Speaking with the Guyana Chronicle on Sunday, government-nominated Commissioner, Desmond Trotman said that what he will personally be putting forward to the Commission will depend on the agenda items the Chair will set. Nonetheless, he recalled that at the previous meeting, he and the other government-nominated Commissioners had pushed for the elections to be vitiated.

“We have argued that the recount process was corrupted, and as such there should be no declaration, based on what took place during the recount,” Commissioner Trotman said.

Guyana has come a long way since the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, which included court battles, a national recount and more court battles. Yet still, the Commission is not hard-set or in unison on what legal means should form the basis of a declaration, or whether the elections should be vitiated.

Understandably, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)-nominated Commissioners want the recount data, which shows a win for their party, to be used to declare the elections. However, there is not only contention about whether the entire elections should be scrapped, but other concerns as well.

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in handing down its recent decision, had noted that Guyana’s Constitution trumps the Recount Order No.60 in the areas where there is contradiction.

It also noted that the election of a president and members of the National Assembly can only be done “on the sole basis of votes counted, and information furnished by Returning Officers under the Representation of the People Act.”

The CEO, in presenting his elections report to the Commission, did so on the basis of declarations made by the Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts, in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. Those declarations and the Elections Report were placed in abeyance to pave way for the national recount.

In his report, the CEO reminded the Chair that the national recount was not undertaken by Returning Officers. “The concluding opinion [Paragraph 52] of the CCJ’s judgment states that Order 60 is in tension with the Constitution of Guyana, and could not create a new election regime,” Lowenfield said in his report.

However, the use of any other data besides the contentious recount data has not found favour with PPP/C-nominated Commissioners. Sase Gunraj made it clear that Lowenfield’s report was a total “eye-pass” to the Commission.

“How much longer must a nation be held hostage by a depraved, dishonest bunch bent on thwarting the will of the electorate?” he asked, adding: “That report does not contain the correct numbers as was generated by the recount exercise.”

Furthermore, the party contends that CCJ never invalidated Order No. 60, but rather “endorsed the recount process”.

The Opposition has called for the CEO to be fired and even charged for the action and previous actions they deem illegal. However, Commissioner Trotman said that he does not view the CEO’s request for clarity prior to the submission of his report as being disrespectful.

He said that Lowenfield’s observation and questions were legitimate, and this is why government-nominated Commissioners supported his right to seek clarity, but the PPP/C did not accept it.
“We also argued [against] threats to dismiss the CEO. The CEO has, under the law, the right to come to the Commission to demand that the concerns which he has on specific issues relevant to [his report] should be addressed, and that despite the fact that they are attempting to say that he was rude when he raised those concerns, the fact of the matter is that he has a legitimate right to be given the opportunity to be heard, and have those concerns be raised,” Trotman said.

However, calls for dismissal are not the worst of the messages that have been coming to CEO, Commissioners of Chair of the Commission. There have been reports of death threats being made to the Justice Singh and the CEO while government-nominated Commissioners have noticed that they are being watched.

Trotman told of a recent encounter which has led him to advocate for greater security to be put in place for Commissioners during these tense times.

“Up to last night, there were persons outside my home photographing the house. So, the question of security of Commissioners really should be addressed. The same way like how the Chair has protection 24 hours a day, there should be some consideration for Commissioners,” he said, adding:

“It is true that we’re exiting in a highly volatile atmosphere at this particular point in time, and, as a result of that, steps should have been taken a long time ago to ensure Commissioners safety.” The Commission will meet today at an undisclosed time.