Ramotar prepared to revisit 2011 Ballot Boxes

Mar 24, 2012 News

…maintains APNU’s infiltration of GECOM processes cost PPP absolute majority

Head of State, Donald Ramotar, is maintaining his position that the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) won more than 50 per cent of the votes in the recently held General and Regional Elections.
He is blaming the current parliamentary position on infiltration of the Guyana Elections Commission by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
Ramotar said that there were several instances where known former PNCR scrutineers and other officials were directly employed by GECOM in various roles on Election Day.

Some of the ballot boxes used in the recently concluded elections

He said too that there is documented evidence where PPP/C agents were refused entry into polling stations.
The President in a definitive pronouncement said, “I reiterate my earlier statement that I am convinced that there were several instances of malpractice between strategically placed GECOM officials who infiltrated the system and APNU, and I remain confident that the PPP/C did have a decisive victory, more than 50 percent of the national votes at the last elections…
“I have said that, and I am ready to go back into the box if they want to prove me wrong.”
Ramotar made the pronouncement during a press briefing held at Office of the President, where he insisted that “the PPP/C did have a decisive victory, more than 50 percent of the national votes at the last elections…I have said that, and I am ready to go back into the (ballot) box if they want to prove me wrong.”
The Head of State lamented what he calls an attempt on the part of APNU to rewrite history, saying that he has taken note of its continued attempt to sow confusion among the populace as it seeks to justify its behaviour after the election, “rather than admit it deliberately mislead supporters.”
Ramotar says that APNU must tell the nation “Why if they are so concerned with the result of the election,” they refused a proposal he made to have a forensic audit of the votes conducted.
“And let us go back into the (ballot) box as we did after the 1997 elections to see what the real result was if they had any doubts in their minds.”
Ramotar reminded that it was he that had first proposed the forensic audit of the votes counted on Election Day, last November, when the matter was initially raised by the opposition.
Ramotar, during his press engagement, also pointed to the fact that following the 2006 Elections international observers had praised the GECOM database and recommended that it be used as the base for future elections.
However, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) which constitutes the largest bloc of APNU, pushed for completely new House to House registration to re-create a database.
He said that it was the PNCR that “insisted and made threats and wanted new house to house registration and we agreed.”
“It is rather unfortunate that after all its attempts to block a re-verification of the results, APNU continues to paint itself as a victim in this process.”
He said that their actions have called into question the integrity and competence of its own agents.
APNU recently concluded a verification of the GECOM Statements of Poll for the November 28, 2011 Regional and General Elections, which it had requested and protested. This points to irregularities in the results, according to the political entity.
So pronounced are the irregularities, according to APNU, that it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the seat allocations in Parliament based on the Official GECOM Statements of Poll (SOP).
APNU suggests that at least in one locale, the votes for APNU appear to be depleted disallowing it at least one seat.
In the report, APNU asserts, “The party votes on the Statements of Poll do not total to the votes attributed to each party in GECOM’s final count.”
According to APNU, given the discrepancies uncovered “the final election results and the results gazetted by GECOM are incorrect.”
The report states that Deputy Returning Officers prepared several SOPs that were unsigned by Presiding Officers or Polling Agents, “these SOPs were then scanned and distributed to the contesting parties via compact disc with the stated communiqué that the Statements of Poll were copies of originals…Clearly false.”
APNU contends that GECOM’s absence of a defined policy on the use of SOPs, allows for the use of copies of SOPs instead of originals in the final count; “as a result GECOM does not have in storage, original Statements of Poll for multiple polling stations.”
The coalition of parties also says that GECOM never provided a final list of polling stations that matched the Places of Poll used on elections day to the political parties and stakeholders. “GECOM is unable to provide a final list of the private residences used as polling stations,”
APNU said. APNU is also contending that illegible copies were used by GECOM in tabulating and computing the SOPs, ultimately resulting in flawed results being published, coupled with the fact that the SOPs were ultimately designed to make them susceptible to fraud and manipulation.
The coalition of parties also pointed to what it calls forged signatures on several SOPs, particularly in Regions Three and Four, which it stressed, represent the locations with the largest bloc of the electorate.
“Aside from the illegal repetitive signatures by one individual on several Statements of Poll, it seemed standard practice for more than one person to write up the SOP. The possibilities for manipulation are then increased, especially as it relates to the totaling of the votes in column two of the SOP.”
APNU said that the discrepancies demonstrate that it could potentially have over 5,000 more votes in Region Four, with PPP/C votes declining in Region Four by a similar amount.
“Also we cannot rule out Statements of Poll being introduced after the elections and included in the final count that were not on any List of Polling Stations provided to the contesting parties due to the non-existence of a final list of Polling Stations.”
“As evidenced in Region One where APNU won one seat by having one more vote than PPP/C in the Regional Seat Allocation…The evidence is clear that each vote is material and the introduction of a single or a few unlisted and/or manufactured SOPs could change the seats allocated to a party.”