As the lawyers say, “he or she who asserts must prove”

May 14, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

This is the response I wish to make to the article appearing in your publication of May 10, 2020 by your columnist, Freddie Kissoon. I wish to note and humbly acknowledge that the article by Freddie Kissoon clearly comes from one endowed with great wisdom and bubbling over with vibrant and eternal youth. It is also informed by a sense of justice and a discretion which may be typical of the columnist. I had not replied to his previous column, simply because I wanted him to have the last word in the exchange. To my surprise, my silence seemed only to offend his sense of justice.
It seems that Mr. Kissoon’s formidable intellect does not allow him to understand opinions and attitudes that differ from his. On my part, I recognize his right to his opinions on the matters he treats and I do not look to him for support or agreement.
Your columnist is indignant because I have refused, from my location, to single out any individual or party as responsible for what appears to be undeniable irregularities in the March 2, elections, even before they began. In my last letter, I said plainly that, if I were to decide to point fingers, I would need more than one finger.
If this statement appears to come from old age, or from some irrational tolerance for cheating, then I have expressed myself badly.
The generations older than mine produced this wisdom in two proverbs: “Two thief can’t change haffa bitt” and, “Tiefman nah like see matty wid big bundle.”
When I was on the spot in Guyana, from 1973 when I coined the phrase “Selections” to describe what had happened in the year of the breakthrough, I have seen all forms of riggings of elections as flowing from a condition of political bankruptcy. The 2020 electoral process continues and I, though absent, have spent a lot of time and energy trying to absorb, sometimes with the help of others, what comes to light.
I may provoke Mr. Kissoon further by repeating what I heard in the early days of the count, on the Voice of Guyana. It was soon after concerns about the use of a spreadsheet during the Region Four count had become public and was a leading topic of contention. I understood those protesting its use to be saying that Region Four was the only region in which a spreadsheet had been employed and that in the other regions the record of votes cast was taken from Statements of Poll. The contention was almost uncontested in the media I could listen to, until I heard Mr. Ganesh saying on radio that he was present at the count in Region Three. He then added “if any observer were to say that Statements of Poll were used in the count in Region Three that would not be a true statement.” No one challenged Mr. Ganesh in that broadcast. Perhaps he was challenged later. However, the last version I heard was that there was only one region in which a spreadsheet was not used.
Regarding the presence of Observers, I repeat that in the statement signed by Mr. Bhagwan and me, we welcomed their presence. This welcome will not include any abuse of their authority. It was the Parliament of Guyana that provided for the continuing presence of observers at our elections.
However, the broadcast preliminary report of one observer group, though like others, critical of the Region Four counting process, was heard on Voice of Guyana to make the following points: First, that there was something very wrong and in need of correction for a country with Guyana’s population to have an electorate of over 600,000 voters; secondly, that the absence in Guyana of laws regulating campaign financing allowed a lot of money coming into the election campaign, without a record of the source or the outcome.
Finally, I am in no hurry, as Mr. Kissoon seems to be, to pass judgment on the brief incumbency of the Chairperson of Guyana’s Election Commission. I understand that the President and the Leader of the Opposition could not agree on a candidate to fill the vacancy. It was filled only after the Caribbean Court of Justice expressed disappointment that such a choice could not be made by the leaders appointed to do so. Although absent, I felt a sense of relief when, at last, the leaders named in the Constitution were able to agree on the person, deemed fit and proper, to fill the post. I have no reason either to defend or come to a conclusion, at the behest of Mr. Kissoon, about the performance of the present Chairperson of the Commission. If Mr. Kissoon feels that the language he has used to describe this functionary is appropriate that is a matter for him. I reserve no right to question his choice of language or his judgment. I can only repeat the words of a European wartime leader, “paper will stand anything that is written on it.”
Having condemned the Chairperson of the Elections Commission out of hand, Mr. Kissoon finally recommended a judicial review of her actions and those of the Commission’s Chief Executive Officer. He demands their punishment “if there is evidence.” Here I am in deep trouble because Mr. Kissoon seems to think that I have the evidence and he may demand my appearance as a witness, whereas he is the one making the accusation. As the Lawyers say, “he or she who asserts must prove.”
What really puzzles me is Mr. Kissoon’s misconception that what I have to say at the end of the process will in any way influence ballots cast and preserved in ballot boxes since March 2, 2020.
During the occupation of Buxton-Friendship in 2002, I said to a press conference at Rodney House, “I am a spent force.” That was 18 years ago. Is this columnist planning to base his judgment on what the present slow-going observed process reveals? Or is he trying to use an opinion poll method, based not on a random sample, but on the chatter of a list of persons of his choice?
The columnist had asked me whether I would request a tribunal on election rigging. I will certainly welcome it, if it is necessary after the present open process. I leave it to the contenders at home to propose it.
In closing, I simply give notice that I will return to my call for investigation and documentation of the post-elections violence, even though I am told that it lasted for only one day. At this moment, I am thinking of a way to approach the High Court of Guyana, seeking a declaration that I have a right to opinions that differ from those of the self-appointed Papacy constituted by and expressed in, Mr. Freddie Kissoon.

Yours Respectfully,
Eusi Kwayana

---

---