Secrecy of the ballot is not compromised by a recount

Apr 26, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The decision of the Guyana Elections Commission to not allow the live streaming of the recount process is bizarre. Not only is it not grounded in law, but it also removes a major plank which could have upheld the transparency of the recount process.
The Commission is apparently contending that to allow the recount streamed live would be in conflict with the secrecy of the ballot provisions that are enshrined under the Representation of the People Act.
It is not. The secrecy of the ballot relates to the non-disclosure of how someone voted. Only an elector can reveal how he or she voted. Thus, no official undertaking either a count or recount can communicate to any other party how a particular elector voted.
Secrecy of the ballot is concerned with safeguarding voter anonymity. It is concerned with ensuring that a ballot cannot be traced back to its elector. Secrecy of the ballot therefore protects what happens in the polling booth between a voter, his conscience, and the mark he makes. It is not intended to keep secretive the counting of the votes or any recount subsequent to the end of balloting.
The Representation of the People Act specifically prohibits, as part of its secrecy of the ballot provisions, any person witnessing a count from disclosing the names of persons who did not vote or for whom a ballot was not cast; the number assigned on the Voters’ list of someone who did not cast his or her ballot; and the official mark of the polling station.
The votes were counted at the polling stations, tallied and batched. This was done in the presence of the polling officials, polling agents and observers. The results were declared on the respective statements of poll and publicly advertised.
The post-close of polls count did not breach the secrecy of the ballot. It is therefore hard to understand how a recount of the votes will do so. The law is very clear on what constitutes a breach of secrecy. This happens only with the names of those who did not vote or on whose behalf no votes were cast.
The Representation of the People Act protects the identities of those who did not exercise their franchise. There is no secrecy when it comes to the count or to a recount.
Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act speaks to maintaining the secrecy at the count not of the count. The Section states” Every person attending at the counting of votes shall maintain and not communicate any information obtained at the count as to the list of candidates for which any vote has been given.”
It does not speak to making the recount a secretive process, as GECOM is now attempting to do. This is totally unacceptable, more so given what has led to the need for a recount.
The Chairperson and those Commissioners who would have voted against the live streaming of the recount need to disabuse themselves of the misconception that any form of telecasting of the recount violates the secrecy of the ballot. What it does is make the recount secretive. Those who voted against the recount on the basis that it violates the secrecy of the ballot have misconstrued the law.
The commitment which was given to the court, the nation, and to the international community, was for a transparent and credible recount process consist with the powers granted to GECOM to “ensure impartiality [and] fairness…” as is called for by the Constitution.
The Election Observer Mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) has urged GECOM to ensure that the procedures for the recount are transparent and consistent and that the public be fully informed of the methodology to be used. There is nothing better than not only ensuring that the public is informed, but that they can see the count.
The whole purpose of having the recount live-streamed is to ensure transparency. It is to demonstrate to the country, and to the world, that there were no irregularities during the recount. It therefore protects the fairness and impartiality of the process.
It is ironic that the elections officials, including those complicit in earlier electoral fraud, the political parties and local and foreign observers will be allowed to live-view the recount process, but the people who matter the most – the voters – cannot witness same. How can the voters be locked out from seeing the recount of their own votes?
The Chairperson and the Commission are courting problems by denying the request for live-streaming. The agent provocateurs will take full advantage of what is taking place to continue with their mischief-making.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---