Why include references to anomalies if they are not to be dealt with by GECOM?

Why include references to anomalies if they are not to be dealt with by GECOM?

Dear Editor,

Much has been said about the Recount of the 2020 elections, and a lot of groups and individuals have given it credibility. However, more needs to be done to better assess and address the irregularities that surfaced during the recount process.

GECOM has a standard operating procedure (SOP) which deals with how the elections are conducted on polling day and naturally how supporting documentation is presented after the count at the close of polls. If those supporting documents are not in place, it naturally brings into disrepute the contents of ballot boxes, thereby leading to questionable ballots.
A breach of these SOPs therefore requires those responsible for missing documentation, be investigated forthwith and if found guilty be dealt with in a condign manner. It is a criminal offence to tamper with the elections process.

The Chief Elections Officer (CEO) in his June 13 Declaration of the Recount argued that identified anomalies and instances of voter impersonation do not appear to satisfy the criteria of impartiality, fairness, and compliance with provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. “Consequently, on the basis of the votes counted and the information furnished from the recount, it cannot be ascertained that the results… meet the standard of fair and credible elections,” he concluded.

While the GECOM Chair, on 18 June, acknowledged in a GECOM press statement that some of the allegations are of a serious nature and must be addressed, she however concluded that the Commission does not have the power to do the latter. It then begs the question why did the Chair of GECOM agree to include references to anomalies in the recount if they were not going to be dealt forthwith by GECOM?

Those allegedly responsible for electoral fraud cannot remain unscathed, especially now that Western Allies are talking about sanctions for electoral officials, they need to be correctly directed who undertook electoral fraud and who’s visas should be targeted.

Finally, if the GECOM Chair, the CEO and subsequently the APNU+AFC Commissioners all agree that the electoral irregularities allegation is of a serious nature, then how come the Chair always seem to find ways to provide a result contrary to the belief of the majority of the Commission, which includes her?

Yours truly
Krishna Persaud

Leave a Comment