Evidently, Mr. Ram seems disinclined to apply a universal yardstick in addressing the deliberations and antics in GECOM

Apr 30, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Reference is made to Christopher Ram’s letter, “This recount could be just another act in Claudette Singh’s circus” (Stabroek News 25th April 2020).
The allegations made by Ram against GECOM Chair Justice Claudette Singh pertaining to the statutory timeframe to declare elections and the constitutional deadline to reconvene the National Assembly are deceptive. He is not only an attorney-at-law, but one au fait with what is happening in the environment and reading the newspapers which he seeks to exert his influence through.
I take note that he could get away with this type of deception without an Editor’s note.
On the matter of the declaration of the results within the statutory 15 days, it is a matter of public record Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield on 7th March emailed the Chair and copied the commissioners, advising that he has “received declarations from Returning Officers for General and Regional Elections 2020 from Districts 1–10. In accordance with Cap 1:03 Section 99, [he has] prepared the final report for submission to the Commission. In this regard, a request is made for a meeting of the Commission at your earliest convenience.”
The Opposition-nominated Commissioners said they would not attend that meeting because of matters before the court and such attendance would be “in contempt of court” Further, matters before the court which were brought by both sides pertaining to the electoral process were not dispatched with until 8th April.
Had GECOM gone ahead and declared results it would have been a greater ruckus than occurred in society.
On the matter of the constitutional deadline to reconvene the National Assembly, the Guyana Bar Association, which is Ram’s fraternity, sought to address this matter. It is unlikely in this time of heightened political awareness, he would be unaware. That statement dated 16th April stated, “Article 69 of the Constitution of Guyana mandates that, on dissolution, the next session of Parliament must commence no later than four (4) months from the end of the preceding session. The last session of Parliament was dissolved on December 30, 2019. The next session of Parliament must therefore begin no later than April 30, 2020.”
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams in response to said statement noted, “…that though Article 69 of the Constitution provides that on dissolution the next session of Parliament must be convened no later than four months from the end of the preceding session, the Court of Appeal of Guyana in 2006 upheld the decision of the Chief Justice Carl Singh, that the four months’ timeline was directory and not mandatory.”
Williams further noted, “This case Civil Appeal No.79 of 2006 was appealed by the Leadership of the AFC, challenging the PPP/C’s convening the new Parliament, not on the 2nd day of September 2006 (four months after dissolution) but on the 28th of September, 2006 almost five months later.” This letter titled “Court of Appeal upheld ruling that four-month period for new Parliament is directory” appeared in SN on 19th April. One would have thought this issue was settled. It is therefore of concern Ram’s attempts at broad swipe of the Chair, starting from a premise already litigated in and settled by the Court.
Having read all the issues raised by Chris, one thought in pursuit of understanding and attempting a critique, truth would have been factored in. What is however noticed that there exists a deliberate omission that the initial 156 days arrived at by the CEO came as a result of a proposal put forward by Opposition-nominated Commissioner Robeson Benn, and accepted by the Commission, that each work station must have two paired commissioners- i.e. one representing the Government and one the Opposition. This meant three workstations, which influenced the determination of the days.
After outcries by the Opposition to the proposed 156 days, fellow Opposition-nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj said, “The CEO’s suggestion for three tables was informed by his understanding [of Benn’s recommendation] that each table should be manned by two paired commissioners (Guyana Chronicle 10th April – Lowenfield to revise recounting plan…PPP-aligned commissioners counter with 10-day proposal). He further added, “That provided a major restriction, and with the removal of that restriction, I believe that the number of tables can be expanded very easily.”
It is instructive that not once did Ram seek to hold the Opposition-nominated Commissioners accountable for any of the delay and deliberation on GECOM working out modalities of a recount. Evidently, he seems disinclined to apply a universal yardstick in addressing the deliberations and antics in GECOM and more inclined on sustaining a narrative of guilt and innocence not on truth but bias.
I refrain from addressing the other allegations in his letter for they are overtaken by GECOM’s subsequent deliberations.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---