GECOM needs to be united on decisions

Dear Editor,

Reference is made to Mr. Persaud’s “How GECOM Secretariat was Constituted” (November 3) and letters (varied dates) and news reports on new house-to-house registration list (October 25). The process and laws on electoral lists need understanding and clarification.
Also, GECOM is too deeply divided in its operations.

Madame Chair (Claudette) Singh needs to take measures to instill faith and confidence in the election body and bring her commissioners together on the difficult issues.
From my own reading of the relevant laws and after speaking with legal luminaries, including former judges, GECOM may not be following the laws on continuous registration of Guyanese (ROG) and Commonwealth citizens, Preliminary List of Electors (PLE), Revised List of Electors (RLE), and Official List of Electors (OLE).

GECOM is setting itself to face court challenges by removing people from the PLE if they did not pick up their ID cards.
Ditto for having a second list (that is being scrutinized) arising out of the house-to-house registration if those legitimate persons on this list are not included on the PLE.
The H2H was not a completed process and thus cannot be used as a basis for PLE .
Every lawyer I spoke with said the laws make mention of only one PLE.

But there is the PLE and the H2Hl that is being circulated for claims and objections; the latter was conducted in August and abruptly terminated by the newly appointed Chair leaving out some 400K people, more than half the population.
Since there is a PLE, what is the purpose of the H2Hl? What will the latter be used for since the law does not cater for it?

My own investigation of samples of names on H2H done at random at varied locations revealed duplicates and names at addresses where homeowners said no such persons lived there.
Even neighbours are unfamiliar with the names – incorrect addresses or non-existent or wrong locations. In addition, I found that people living in legitimate addresses are not on the H2H. It is difficult to tell how inaccurate or flawed is the H2Hl.
We know over 60% of Guyanese are not on the H2Hl. It also seems, based on my preliminary assessment, that a significant percentage (estimated 10% if not higher) of the names on H2Hl can’t be verified.

Clearly, this is problematic. GECOM should do a random sampling of verification of addresses on the list. Or failing that, the parties should be funded to carry out a verification process (with additional time given for scrutiny – there is still a lot of time to prepare an OLE) as was done with the claims and objections).

The way election law is structured is: registration of Guyanese (and Commonwealth citizens) or preparation of a national list from which a PLE (extracted from the national registrar) is derived. The law does not cater for an incomplete H2Hl. The PLE is either a H2Hl or extracted from a national list or the list from the previous election is used as a basis of a PLE. There are claims and objections that lead to a RLE and (after review) from it is derived the OLE for an election.

Although GECOM is headed by a former Chief Justice (Madame Claudette Singh) and has at least three lawyers, they should check with election law specialists that they are not breaking the law.
Taking voters’ names off a list can be the subject of a court challenge that undoubtedly will succeed at the CCJ if not in Guyana.
The Chair should point to the relevant sections of law that allows for an incomplete H2Hl and its relevance in light of very distinct law on PLE.

When is the H2Hl going to be merged with the PLE? Will there be time for claims and objections of this new PLE that emerges?
It is also noted that GECOM is deeply divided on almost every single matter pertaining to the varied lists noted above.
The Chair frequently had to break a tie in partisan voting- she voted consistently with the government half of the commission.

There is deep lack of trust on both sides. People of repute and non-partisans I spoke with say that such a polarized body does not give much confidence in GECOM.
The Chair needs to rise above partisanship and take independent objective positions not in violation of basic laws.

She needs to bring all members of GECOM in unison pertaining to the H2Hl, PLE, RLE, and OLE especially in addressing questions raised on the H2H and on the removal of names of people who have not picked up their ID cards.

Vishnu Bisram (PhD)