GECOM’s official results and constitutionality supersede the opinions of skeptics

Dear Editor,

Further to my letter of April 12, 2020 in which a call was made for the Chairperson of Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to adopt the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)’s final report for the March 2, 2020 declared election results, permit me to posit some added reasons.

A few days after the General Elections (GE), the Presidential Candidate of the People’s Republican Party (PRP) made a startling confession. Rev. Pastor Phyllis Jordan confessed before the Guyanese nation that a leading political party had furnished the PRP with a spreadsheet of the GE results that conflicted with those of original Statements of Poll (SOPs) from her party’s agents. It is widely suspected that the PRP was supplied with those conflicting totals from the PPP, since the APNU/AFC denied doing so.

Madam Jordan’s confession was a timely revelation that exposed the PPP’s crude account of results, which varied from those that supported GECOM’s official declarations obtained from original SOPs.
If intelligence received after the close of polls on March 2, 2020 are anything to go by, spreadsheet results similar to those given to the PRP were also supplied to the plethora of other small parties that contested ‘in only some regions’ of the GE, and persons associated with leading foreign Heads of Mission stationed in Guyana.

There have been numerous complaints, allegations and reports that the PPP and their surrogates have systematically reproduced conflicting SOPs and summary of total votes, in their attempt to create doubt, confusion, and besmirch the official SOPs and final declarations for each administrative region by GECOM.

It is therefore not surprising that the unified attack against GECOM flowed from all those who were provided with unofficial results from PPP-manufactured spreadsheets. GECOM is the only authorized body that can declare election results.

GECOM needs to be wary of the much-embraced post-declaration recounting of votes, which although made in good faith and not expected to change the winner, has already seen signs of reneging by the main opposition from what was originally agreed upon. GECOM should seek to untangle itself from a well-orchestrated ploy by the PPP, as it constantly keeps shifting the goalposts, thereby creating deeper constitutional confusion.

Apart from the APNU/AFC, the PPP was the only other significant contestant of the March 2 General and Regional elections; elections that were duly won by the APNU/AFC coalition based on declared results.
The insinuation that international sanctions may be forthcoming against individuals, and the Guyanese nation as a whole, if GECOM adopts the officially declared results, is a direct usurpation and attempt to destabilize a legitimate government.

GECOM ought not to be coerced nor intimidated by innuendos, but recognize the rights of the majority of Guyanese who evidently voted to re-elect the APNU/ AFC government based on the officially declared results. More disastrous may be the outcome should GECOM not do so by allowing itself to be hoodwinked by those who seek to undermine the integrity of that august body and our electoral processes. GECOM must comply with all legal provisions, which are pellucid under the Representation of the People Act.

Our laws are unequivocal regarding challenges to declared election results by aggrieved parties – Laws of Guyana, Cap. 1:03 Sec 61 (2)(b) b. There is also precedence by which GECOM may be guided, exemplified by the December 1997 GE election petition. Those laws must be respected and upheld by GECOM, since vitiating already declared results is a premise of illegality and may lead to a total breakdown of law and order.

While a group of enthusiasts aligned with the PPP clamour for democracy, they should understand it in a universal context, and not mere fantasies of those with personal ambitions and ulterior motives. Our Democracy has permitted multiparty participation in the electoral process, the secrecy of polling, freedom of expression and the right to judicial review, to name a few.

In closing, due recognition is given to the APNU/AFC government for completing an even sixty (60) months in office, from May 11, 2015 to April 11, 2020 notwithstanding numerous hostile attempts to discredit its accomplished tenure.

Yours faithfully,
Orette Cutting