THE GECOM CHAIRMAN SHOULD RECONSIDER THIS APPOINTMENT

Jan 10, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Should the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission(GECOM) step down as the Chairperson of the Guyana Livestock Development Authority (GLDA)?
There is no doubt that the Chairman of GECOM would have broken no law and would NOT be in violation of the Constitution of Guyana by not accepting the position of the Chairperson of GLDA.
The Constitution stipulates that the Chairman of GECOM should be a fulltime employee and not be engaged in any other form of employment. This provision of the constitution was not intended to deny anyone holding the Chairmanship of GECOM from participating in national bodies. The purpose of this provision was no doubt intended to ensure that the Chair of GECOM would be able to dedicate sufficient time to his work as Chairperson of GECOM without the burden of other employment obligations. Thus, it was intended to ensure that the Chairperson would not be distracted in his duties as Chairman by other obligations. The criticisms that are being made by those opposed to the GECOM head taking up the role of Chair of the GLA seem to relate to the possibility of a conflict of interest developing. It seems as if the deeper concern being expressed is that the GECOM Chairman would be in a conflict of interest by taking up this position which the critics have wrongfully presumed is employment. Accepting the Chairperson of the GLDA can in no way be construed as employment. Even if a stipend was paid for the duties of Chairmanship, this does not amount to employment, and thus is not in breach of the Constitution of Guyana. There is no court in Guyana and elsewhere which is likely to conclude that accepting the Chairmanship of the GLDA constitutes employment. It does not.  Those who are advancing the case that the Chairman of GECOM is breaching the constitution are on shaky ground.
But they are firmer around by arguing that it may not be wise decision so close to an election for the Chairman to accept nomination to a national committee, especially when the recommendations of that committee may inform the policies of the government. This relationship, however distant, is perhaps not ideal for someone holding the position of Chairman of GECOM, especially when we are just months away from a national election in which a new President is going to be elected. As such, it would be advisable if the Chairman of GECOM declines that Chairmanship, since while it is not in violation of either the letter or spirit of the Constitution of Guyana, it can create certain perceptions that would not be helpful to the work of the Commission.
I am sure that there will be time, after the Chairman would have retired from the Commission, for him to make his contribution in other fields to national development. He should not see his declining, at this stage, of the Chairmanship of the GLDA, as denying him his duty to make a contribution to national development based on his obvious professional expertise. Rather he should consider this stepping away as a step to enhance further confidence in the electoral process which is to be conducted under his leadership.
He should not view the criticisms, and there is no evidence that he does, as a personal attack. Those who are saying that he is in violation of the Constitution, are clearly not correct, but their criticisms spring from a much deeper concern about the possibility of his acceptance of the Chairmanship of GECOM bringing him too close with the Executive and thus giving rise to perceptions, however unfounded, of a conflict of interest.
That is not a cloud that the Chairman wants over the GECOM as the country prepares for a General Election. At the same time, those making the criticisms should consider the larger implications of their arguments.
It would be interesting if some charity were to invite the Chair to become a member of their grouping and if within that same grouping there were opposition members, to see whether the same persons who are criticizing the appointment to the GLDA would protest any such membership? Does this mean that the Chairman cannot be a member of some benevolent organisation committed to helping others, simply because there may be opposition or government figures involved? Does this mean that the Chairman cannot worship in a place simply because someone close to the ruling party may hold a senior position in that religious organisation?
Criticism to a great extent is always self-serving but that does not make it unmeritorious. In the present instance, the Chairperson should consider whether it would be in his and Guyana’s best interest to take up that appointment as Chairman of GLDA.

---

---