HOGWASH – Incumbent’s claims are highly improbable and have no impact in determining the winner

Dear Editor,
In the past few weeks, we continue to see the incumbent government (APNU/AFC) making claims regarding the conduct of the March 2020 elections. First, they claim they won the elections on the grounds of Mingo’s infamous Region 4 tabulation. This was legally challenged, and a recount exercise was initiated. Terrified of the recount exercise and the results it would yield, the incumbent started to make alleged anomalies from day 1 of the recount, mostly targeted at discrediting the validity of the votes cast in March 2020. These allegations were made specifically in the opposition’s strongholds.

Here is the killer: when these anomalies were statistically extrapolated on the back of a napkin, they amounted to a whopping 86,000 invalid votes, indicating there was systematic fraud in the opposition’s strongholds ONLY!?!
Some of these allegations have been reported in the observation reports to date for the respective regions, and some were being heard of for the first time by most stakeholders at an in-office press conference held by Mr. Harmon on May 25, 2020.

Given the sensitivity around these allegations, and the incumbent’s efforts to discredit the foundation of the electoral process and ultimately impact the outcome, it is important to understand why these allegations are almost impossible to have occurred. The procedures as laid out in the Representation of the People Act and enacted by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) have been time tested, modified over the decades, and are viewed by experts as solid. There are multiple layers of internal controls, segregation of duties, protection of voting assets, sign-offs, audit trail and other safeguards. As a matter of fact, it is because of this rigorous process that Mingo’s fraud was so easily uncovered.

Additionally, when engaged in a manual electoral process, some of these anomalies are common and were noted by accredited observers in prior Guyana elections.
Based upon the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the allegations made by the incumbent are nearly impossible to have occurred. Any errors detected have been deemed immaterial, and do not have an impact on the valid votes cast in determining a winner. Observations noted in the observations report during the recount as well as those noted by independent observers should be evaluated by GECOM and considered in making improvements to the process going forward.

To date, no material weakness was identified to deem the electoral process systemically flawed. A credible winner can therefore be announced based upon the party receiving most of the total valid votes.

Warmest regards,
Bibi Ramdayal, CPA