‘PPP holding a gun to GECOM’s head’

Political scientist Dr. David Hinds, while iterating his support for a comprehensive audit of the March 2020 elections, said intimidation of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) may have already compromised the process.

“I fear that this recount would be consumed by the zero-sum attitude of the players, especially the PPP. They are holding a gun to GECOM’s head and that would prejudice things. They are terrorising the Chair of GECOM. They are targeting officials of the secretariat and are putting those people’s lives in danger. They are encouraging sanctions against their own country. These tactics are plain wrong. But they may have already compromised the review or recount,” Dr Hinds told the Guyana Chronicle during an online interview on Monday.

It was on April 3 that the elections commission, chaired by Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, took a decision to proceed with a national recount in keeping with a commitment made to the High Court. However, that commitment, given by Justice Singh was made after the PPP/C, through one of its supporters Reeaz Holladar, filed contempt proceedings against GECOM and its functionaries over an alleged failure by the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo to tabulate the votes cast in his electoral district in accordance with electoral laws. Though the case was shelved, and no Contempt Order issued, the chair made good on her commitment.

The week prior, the PPP/C and its allies had clashed with the police at GECOM’s Command Centre (High and Hadfield Streets) as they tried to invade an office, in which the chairperson of the elections commission, was operating. It was alleged that the GECOM Chair was “dead,” “sick,” and even held “hostage,” but these allegations peddled by the PPP/C were proven to be untrue, as she was alive and well.

Nonetheless, in announcing its decision to proceed with the recount, GECOM indicated that it would be done in chronological order based on an approved operational plan crafted by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield. Though the operational plan is still in its draft stage, the PPP/C, through its Commissioners – Sase Gunraj, Bibi Shadick and Robeson Benn – is now demanding that the recount be done within 10 days, starting with District Four.

Dr. Hinds, who is also an executive member of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), said it is important for GECOM to engage in a comprehensive audit of the March 2 General and Regional Elections and not a mere numerical recount, as he endorsed the position of government-nominated commissioner, Vincent Alexander.

“Given the gravity of the situation and given the fact that the PPP has made strong charges of fraud, it is imperative that there is a most comprehensive review of the results. In that regard, I fully support an audit over a numerical recount. An audit by its very definition means reviewing the results. So, in this instance it means reviewing the results that are already declared by the 10 regions. And from my standpoint it must be both an audit of the numbers and the process by which the numbers were arrived at. The latter is critical. And you can’t audit part of the election, you have to review the entire election from top to bottom,” he told this newspaper.

He said if the PPP/C or any other political party is serious about exposing and correcting electoral fraud, it should support a comprehensive and holistic approach. “You cannot pick and choose points of intervention. So, I favour a comprehensive review starting with Region One. That’s a fair point from which to start. I suppose the PPP wants to start at Region Four because they feel that is where the other side is vulnerable. And the coalition may be eager to start in Region Three or Six where they think the PPP is vulnerable. So, Region One is a neutral place to start,” the political scientist reasoned.

The PPP/C, in alleging electoral fraud, had published what was reported to have been legitimate Statements of Poll (SOPs), though those SOPs varied significantly from the official SOPs in the possession of the returning officer and GECOM.

“My layman’s understanding forces me to ask: How do we know that the PPP’s SOPs are reliable? This is not the first time that the PPP is holding its SOPs as examples of truth; it unsuccessfully did so as recently as the 2015 elections. But an audit would determine the truth of those charges,” Dr. Hinds posited.

He added: “Similarly, there are charges that the PPP benefitted from the bloated voters list via the use of fake ID cards on pollng day. Two young men were actually caught in the act at Mon Repos. There are also reported instances of 100% and more turnout in some polling places in PPP areas.” Dr Hinds said given the circumstances, an audit would be the best way to uncover the truth.

In the absence of an official declaration by the elections commission, there is no winner, he said, positing that those who would have rushed to front to declare the PPP/C the winner of the electionswere simply premature in their actions.

“My view is that it is a disputed election and we must wait on a comprehensive review before declaring the winner. I have steered clear of naming a winner. I voted and campaigned for the coalition and would be happy if it wins. But once the results are being disputed, I think as a public commentator I have a responsibility to desist from calling the elections for one side or the other. I am afraid that those who have done so have made a terrible error,” he further reasoned.

GECOM has committed to declaring the official results of the elections. Today, the commission is expected to meet again, this time to receive a revised copy of the draft operational plan for the national recount from the CEO. In his initial draft, the chief elections officer had indicated that 156 days were required to execute the recount; , however, that number is likely to be reduced.