Response to David Granger 20th March 2020 Statement

Mar 22, 2020 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I read President David Granger’s 20th March, 2020 statement and despite the little ray of hope I may have held that he would act in a way that would place country before party so that there would be a sensible resolution to this international embarrassment, the consequence of which will affect all Guyanese, that is now lost.
Before I dissect President Granger’s statement, it must be stated that the true neutral party in this election saga, the many international observers (the Cater Center, OAS, Commonwealth, the EU Observers etc.), have all said that the declared result for District 4 was not transparent and not in compliance with the law so, the election as it stands would not be credible. The USA, UK, Canada, and EU have also issued joint statements one of which expressed “deep concern over credible allegations of electoral fraud” urging Granger not to swear in on the declared results as he and his government would be viewed as unconstitutional. Consequently, none other than the Secretary of State for the USA, Mike Pompeo, has warned of sanctions and serious consequences for persons who form illegitimate regimes and those who benefit from electoral fraud. For the record, for the ones who may have framed the foregoing as an “imperialist motive to intervene in our internal affairs” or a “racist agenda”, CARICOM has also echoed similar statements stating any government sworn in on results which are not credible would not be legitimate.
As it relates to President Granger’s statement, it is not accurate for him to say that we must await the ruling of the Court. The only Court case seeking to prevent the only accepted solution to this international embarrassment, i.e. a recount of the votes, is filed by a candidate of the APNU of which Granger is the leader of the main party. Granger, as President and as leader of the main party can instruct the applicant to withdraw the Court proceedings immediately. He has not done so and never will.
Even if he does not possess the political authority or the personal courage to instruct the applicant to withdraw the Court proceedings, then just like all other persons who applied to intervene in those Court proceedings, he, as leader of the list for the APNU-AFC, can also make a similar application and swear an affidavit that he would like to have a recount and/or seek the dismissal of these Court proceedings so that there can be a recount. He has not done so and never will.
The fact is that Statements of Poll are public documents, and the APNU-AFC would have in their possession all their copies of the Statements of Poll for District 4. As the leader the list for the APNU-AFC, President Granger could have instructed the publication of their copies of the Statements of Poll to refute any or all Statements of Poll published by the PPP/C. He has not done so and never will.
As President, if he believes the Statements of Poll published by the PPP/C are fraudulent as many candidates of the APNU-AFC claim, he could immediately request a criminal investigation from the Guyana Police Force. He has not done so and never will.
Granger, as President who made appointments of persons on GECOM and leader of the list of the APNU-AFC, can, in the interest of transparency, call publicly on GECOM to publish all of their Statements of Poll used to make the declarations as his own son-in-law who is a former Minister in his Cabinet did. He has not done so and never will.
Granger’s statement also shows how ill-advised he is and how ill-suited he remains for the responsibility of executive President. He states that persons should desist from attacks on the Chairman, Commissioners and members of the Commission. The Constitution at Art. 161 clearly prescribes that the Chairman and the six Commissioners constitute the Commission – there are no other members of the Commission – so who are the other members of the Commission he refers? Second, he states that “persons have approached the Supreme Court of Judicature for judicial review of our electoral laws”. This is also incorrect. The approaches to the Court were made for judicial review on a determination of compliance with our electoral laws not a judicial review of our electoral laws. This is totally different and an important difference which a President must know before making any such written statement.
President Granger then goes on to state that GECOM has the sole authority for the conduct of General and Regional elections and urged all citizens to await the final declaration of results but ignores his own advice when he paraded himself as the victor of these elections to his supporters outside his party headquarters on Lamaha Street on the night of the 5th March, 2020 before GECOM made a final declaration which to date has not made a final declaration.
President Granger goes on to state his commitment to respect the Constitution but neglects to mention that he is required to obey it. He then absurdly states a commitment unknown to the functions of the Office of President to protect the integrity of the Chairman and Commissioners. It is not Granger’s responsibility to protect anyone’s integrity other than his own. The Chairman and Commissioners are Constitutional office holders and intelligent adults who are solely responsible for their integrity and the protection thereof.
Now that one of the APNU candidates has filed these proceedings, President Granger once again sits back and will allow the proceedings to conclude so that if the Court Orders GECOM to make a final declaration even on District 4’s discredited declaration, he can be sworn in and claim the Court is an independent body. The end game for Granger is the same – swearing in.
The content of his statement must be seen for what it really is, that is simply a red herring and smoke and mirrors.
Charles Ramson (Jnr)

---

---