Surujbally’s attacks on GECOM Commissioners are misplaced

Mar 08, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
The recent reports in the media on remarks and statements made by the past Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, Dr. Steve Surujbally, on his demitting office, raises questions of concern as to whether he deliberately, or mistakenly, is on a mission of undermining the accepted view of the constitutionally determined composition of the body of which he was chairman for fifteen (15) years.
Further, his statements at the press briefing, add to the criticisms of the quality of his stewardship of GECOM. Dr. Surujbally was quoted as stating that “partisan” commissioners were not good for Guyana – a position he has stated at commission meetings on some occasions when he was required to cast his vote when the commission was divided across the table on contentious issues.
The Constitution provides for six commissioners three of which are appointed by the President, acting in his own deliberate judgment, and three appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. The Chairman of GECOM is appointed, according to Article (161) 2, “ The Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court…or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit and proper person.”
I have several times pointed out to Dr. Surujbally that the Commission was bi-partisan in nature, as a result of the tedious and deliberate formulation of the “Carter Formula” which was one of the key adoptions in constitutional reform which allowed for a more democratic constitution and free and fair elections in 1992.
The resultant makeup of the Commission necessarily took into account the political context of Guyana and the interests of the major national political stakeholders in the constitutional reform process.
Therefore, in my view, Dr. Surujbally’s attacks on commissioners for “partisan” positions or actions in and outside of GECOM are misplaced and, are seemingly following an agenda which is scripted elsewhere adopting the course of which could lead to the bogging down of progress towards holding National Elections in 2020 as constitutionally mandated.
The nominated commissioners of GECOM have the crucial role of bringing the perspectives, viewpoints and experiences of their nominee, the nominee’s supporters, and those of the wider society (inclusive of adversarial positions from the ‘other side’) for consideration, deliberation and resolution to the table at GECOM.
And so, one has to ask Dr. Surujbally, who is better placed to officiate at internal elections of their nominating party or grouping than a fair-minded, discerning GECOM commissioner? And who is better at engaging with stakeholder groups in relation to their concerns with respect to the operations of the electoral body?
While Commissioners are expected and understood to be reticent, detached, discrete and dispassionate in their engagements one cannot ascribe mere “partisianship” to the role and every singled-out activity action of commissioners.
And here, I want to categorically deny being on a PPP/C ‘platform” in Essequibo shortly after being appointed a GECOM commissioner. I partook in an outreach by the PPP/C on that coast where I had discussions and took information at private ‘bottom-house’ meetings or at informal encounters at a number of locations where GECOM’S performance was unfailingly severely criticized. Surujbally appears to delight in propagating the fiction of the ‘platform’ which was inaccurately reported in the press.
In any event, it is the Chairman of GECOM who, when put in the sometimes unenviable position of having to cast his vote in determining a matter that is divisive – partisan or not- who has to have the courage and confidence to so do in a manner that is viewed as deliberate, logical and standing the tests of integrity and transparency.
Dr. Surujbally’s casting of his determining vote on the question of the CEO Lowenfield’s application to the courts to pursue the blocking of a hearing of the Ganga Persaud’s Election Petition does not meet nor allows for the standard of transparency and integrity required of an elections commission in any democracy and brings the electoral body to a new historically low point. Why should GECOM, through its CEO, stand in the way of the constitutionally mandated resort, which is intended to bring comfort on judicial scrutiny and determination, on the questioning of electoral integrity?
Robeson Benn
PPP/C GECOM Commissioner

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News