IN DEFENCE OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONCEDE

May 17, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

To concede or not to concede; to accept the results or not to accept the results!
A number of Returning Officers denied the request by the PPPC for recounts of ballots cast in Guyana’s just concluded General and Regional Elections. The Returning Officers in question deemed the requests as unreasonable.
Having closed the door on further recounts (there was an unconfirmed report that some boxes would be recounted), there was nothing, other than compliance with the law, that stood in the way of GECOM declaring the final results.
I am sure that by the time you would have read this, and barring any unforeseen developments, that this final declaration of results would have been made.
What I am concerned about, and this is what this column seeks to address, is the view being pedaled that the failure of the PPPC to concede and accept the results of the elections was the reason for the results not being declared earlier.
It may be a nice tradition for the leader of a party that accepts that it has lost an election to call his opposite number and extend his congratulations. But what if the leader of the losing party does not accept or believe that he has lost the election? Why should he concede? Because a group of foreign embassies and local organizations want him to do so?
If I feel that I have been cheated, why would I concede and accept the results. This makes no sense. What those who are making calls for the PPPC to accept the results are really calling for is for the PPPC to accept the accuracy of GECOM’s tabulations, because this is the only basis upon which the PPPC is going to concede.
The fact that the PPPC does not concede cannot stop any declaration once all the legal procedures have been followed. Once the recounts are over or denied, the only thing stopping the declaration would be the legal requirements which GECOM must comply with.
Incidentally, in one previous election, the official declaration was delayed for almost two weeks because the PNCR insisted that it should be done in accordance with certain prescribed procedures. It is because of the judgment in that Court case that ensured that the results could not have been declared on Friday.
The PNCR has only conceded once to the PPPC. And this was in 1992, and only after the Carter quick count demonstrated that the PPPC held an unassailable lead based on the percentage of the votes counted. Indeed, Desmond Hoyte conceded when only 90% of the votes had been counted. He made it clear that even if the PNCR got all the remaining votes, his party could not overtake the PPPC.
The PNCR did not ever after accept the results of the elections. In fact it caused trouble in the streets of Georgetown in 2011, arguing that it had been robbed. It did not accept the results of the 1997 elections, and in fact in order to stem the political crisis that erupted after the elections, there had to be an agreement for an Audit of the ballot boxes.
The Caricom Audit Team went through every ballot box and the variances were so small that it did not materially alter the results of the elections, not even by a seat. Still the PNC did not accept.
We have therefore been down this road before in terms of election results. What the PPPC has done is nothing new. Its refusal to concede could not affect the declaration anymore because the requests for recounts in certain areas were rejected. There was nothing the PPPC could do about that.
But these rejections can and should be challenged through an election petition. In one instance, a Returning Officer indicated that the request was unreasonable because the counts at the polling stations were scrutinized by party polling agents and observers.
This is a challengeable explanation. A request for a recount cannot legally be deemed as unreasonable on such grounds. It is not unreasonable to request a recount simply because the original count was witnessed. What if the facts are in contention? What if it is the contention that in certain cases the count was not witnessed? What if despite it being witnessed, the statements of poll held by the polling agent and GECOM officials have variances?
I do not accept that it is unreasonable to request a recount simply because the original count was witnessed. I do not believe that any Court will agree with this interpretation of “unreasonable”. As such, I believe that in any election petition, the PPP can have such a decision deemed as invalid and ultra vires. While this may not change the status quo ante, it would represent an important interpretation of Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act, one that can be used as a precedent in determining when a request is reasonable and when it is not reasonable.
I am sure also that if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if it were the opposition coalition that had been deemed to have lost the elections by 5,360 votes, they too would have been filing requests for recounts. Not only would the coalition have demanded a total recount, their supporters would have taken steps to ensure that maximum pressure was put on GECOM.
The PNCR lost elections in the past by wide margins and have refused to accept the results. The PPPC has every right not to concede in this one.
The PPPC never threatened not to demit office. It knew it would have to given the circumstances. Once a declaration was made, the Swearing-in ceremony had to take place and with it a new President and later a new government.

---

---