Latest update April 6th, 2025 12:03 AM
Latest News
- Exxon admits to operating above production rates in EIAs
- Oil sinks to pandemic lows; metals, soybeans slump as China retaliates against U.S. Tariffs
- Israel has turned two-thirds of Gaza into no-go zones, UN says
- ‘If the President’s award means anything, he would terminate Ramson’- Protestors
- Power China, Kalpataru sign US$422M contracts for extension of transmission lines for GPL
GECOM Musings
Dear Editor,
Another Tuesday, another Statutory meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission. It never fails to amaze me during these weekly discourses, how determined efforts are made to kerfuffle those of us who try to unravel yet more brazen efforts at obfuscation and material non-disclosure of decisions made and acted upon “between meetings”.
Just before the meeting, information was shared via e-mail about the Voter Education activities promised to us last week. The information included a matrix of PR and other multi-media outfits, which apparently sent quotations for several activities including infomercials and flyers.
Questions were asked and it turns out that none of this procurement of services was publicly advertised, no information was available as to how the entities were chosen to send in quotes, and how the various activities were even disaggregated!
For instance, activities such as the voting process; stamping ballot paper; voting without an ID; eligibility to vote; voter rights and responsibility; voting by proxy and election offences are all listed separately for 60 sec infomercials costing between $65,000 and $160,000.
The basis for this listing remained unexplained and the impression I got was that the whole thing is contract-splitting to benefit select outfits. As usual, the excuse for no public tender or anything resembling a transparent process was sacrificed at the altar of ‘not enough time and statutory deadlines to meet in a great hurry’.
Then, the would-be pacifist, Commissioner Alexander, laments the absence of a procurement manual, which would disallow such underhand practices, yet that manual remains elusive.
At this meeting, the Chairman, to the consternation of the meeting, announced that he had written Mr. Ashton Chase S.C. to provide ‘further and better particulars’ and that it was his own deliberate decision that payment to Mr. Chase be deferred even though the matter which was brought against GECOM since 2011 when Mr. Chase was retained, with no advance or deposit on fees.
The matter was first decided in the High Court in GECOM’s favour, then on appeal was again, in August, 2018, decided in GECOM’s favour, and no legal fees had been demanded or paid throughout the whole process from 2011 to 2018!
Compare the invoice sent by Mr. Chase S.C. for the princely sum of $950,000 – $450,000 for the High Court and $500,000 for the Court of Appeal representation, to invoices sent by Roysdale Forde, Attorney for the CEO, in the sums of $6 million plus $960,000 VAT for representation in the matter of the Elections Petition filed by Ganga Persaud, which is yet to be heard, and a deposit on fees for $2 million dollars plus $280,000 VAT for representation in the application for Judicial Review filed by me, which is in the process of being heard. And the Chairman, without any discussion or recourse to any input from the Commission decides that Mr. Chase S.C. will not yet be paid!
While on the subject of legal fees, the CEO reported that he has not yet received an invoice from Mr. Teni Housty for representation in the Judicial Review matter filed in Berbice. The CEO said that the Chairman is in charge of getting that invoice since it was the Chairman who had procured Mr. Housty’s services. The Chairman is now procurement Officer for Legal Services!
This meeting was informed that the printing of ballot papers for the LGE was complete and that the two Commissioners, Gunraj and Corbin, are to oversee the sealing for shipment on Wednesday and return to Guyana on Thursday and Sunday respectively.
All this while, there are outstanding requests by at least four candidates for withdrawal with no action by the CEO to effect their withdrawals and no decision on the deletion of nominators’ names from lists even though persons had submitted affidavits and requests for withdrawal of names and that such withdrawals could and would affect the validity of the inclusion of some candidates.
Asked about reports in the press that the AFC Campaign Manager had announced that the AFC was withdrawing from contesting between 10 and 15 areas for which they has submitted candidates, the CEO claimed that he had not been informed by the AFC of any such thing and all the ballots have been printed.
This now seems that the AFC made that public announcement, to detract from its candidates’ submission of lists with fraudulent or forged signatures of nominators, and to gain some sympathy from the electors!
What a tangled web we weave…!
Bibi Shadick (Commissioner – GECOM)
October 16, 2018
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The One-Man Republic
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There exists, tucked away on the margin of maps and minds, a country that has perfected... more
The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United... more
Weekend Cartoon
