Who is in charge at GECOM?

Jul 25, 2019 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

The continued insistence on a list of six candidates “not unacceptable” to the President, coupled with his naive connotation that “seeking consensus” in the appointment of a GECOM chairman, mentioned by the CCJ, gives him the right to contribute names on the list is a clear ploy to railroad the 90 days time frame for elections given by the CCJ consequential decisions. Since only one person is required to be appointed. The President’s insistence on a list of six “not unacceptable” to him while trying to insert a name of his choice on the list, is a classic method of gerrymandering on the issue of appointing a GECOM chairperson. In conjugation, the CEO of GECOM suddenly starting to execute house-to-house registration on the perceived orders of a CCJ constitutionally rejected GECOM Chairman, James Patterson, is viewed by the public as an act of collusion by GECOM and the governing Coalition. The fact that the CCJ ruled that the unilateral appointment of Patterson was illegal, logically nullifies his work – the initiation of house-to-house registration. The truth be told, Patterson was squatting at GECOM. After he was pronounced to be illegal, his structures (house-to-house registration) should be demolished. Had the CEO of GECOM intended to lead an independent GECOM in compliance to the CCJ’s consequential orders – elections in 90 days – he would not have harkened to the orders of an illegal GECOM Chairman for house-to-house registration. Surely, the CEO would be aware that house-to-house registration could not be completed and an OLE compiled for elections in time to accommodate the CCJ’s consequential timeline for elections. This is a clear indication that GECOM, minus a chairman, under the tutelage of the CEO (Keith Lowenfield) has no intention of gearing GECOM to comply with the CCJ consequential decisions.
If you are not for, then you are against the CCJ’s decisions! Moreover, the CEO would be aware that thousands of Guyanese in foreign lands who may wish to come and vote in the general elections would be disenfranchised because of the burden of making two trips – one to register and one to vote – to make a contribution to democracy in their homeland. I would not be surprise if GECOM in its present mode announced that it would be sending its officers to every Guyanese home overseas to register them. Ludicrousness knows no bounds in Guyana recently!
I can see no reason why an OLE which was deemed valid up to April 30 by GECOM’s CEO cannot be rectified by claims and objection, four months after March. Ironically, GECOM’s CEO recently attested that OLE from the last LGE could be cleansed through claims and objection for the holding of credible elections. So who is it at GECOM that ordered the commencement of house-to-house registration? Would that be Lowenfield? I am perplexed!

Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News