Recount results valid for GECOM to declare – OAS

The Organisation of American States (OAS), which had mounted an electoral observation mission to Guyana’s March 2 polls and the continuation of the electoral process, has issued a statement that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is already in possession of a result based on valid votes cast on Election Day. It said that any aggrieved party wishing to challenge the validity of the election should wait until after a declaration is made to file an election petition.
The statement comes on the heels of a report submitted by Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, which would see the APNU+AFC winning the elections. Lowenfield has given no justification for his revised numbers, which purports to discard 115,844 of the 460,352 valid votes cast in the March 2 General Election.
The actual total valid votes cast, and determined during the General Election recount, shows the PPP/C to have secured a victory of 233,336 votes over the coalition’s 217,920 votes.
The OAS said that it has been present for the determination and tabulation of the total valid votes cast for each region – “totals that were subsequently confirmed by the Chief Elections Officer and submitted to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).”
Hence, it said, while it is for the rights of citizens to access electoral justice, “there is a fine line between the right to redress and the use of the courts to stall the electoral process.”
“It is undeniable that this election has gone on long enough,” the OAS said “The process in Guyana must be brought to an end, based on the results of the national recount, and with respect for the will of the majority of the electorate. The OAS remains committed to the strengthening of democracy in Guyana, hoping for a just and fair conclusion of the current process.”
GECOM is restrained at this juncture from taking particular action which may prejudice the case which has now been filed in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) by the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) and scheduled for a full hearing on July 1.
A woman named Eslyn David had approached the Court of Appeal for an interpretation of Article 177 (2) of the Constitution, which it did give after ruling 2-2 that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. In response, the PPP/C has asked the CCJ to strike down the Appeal Court’s ruling on the grounds that the Appeal Court had no jurisdiction to make such a ruling.