GECOM is engaged in the ‘unfair’ and ‘illegal’

Jun 10, 2020 Letters

Dear Editor,

The decision made by the Guyana Elections Commission to include, in its tabulation, ballots which are patently unverifiable, threatens to make a mockery of the entire recount process.
The Guyanese public was well schooled regarding the purpose of the recount – an exercise aimed at determining the credibility of the voting and results of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. Indeed, as the third recital of the Order authorising the recount makes clear, the recount exercise is aimed at “…determining a final credible count”. Against the background of calls for transparency, all Guyanese prepared themselves to be spectators at an event that promised to judge harshly any suggestion of impropriety or dishonesty. Party scrutineers stood as linesmen and women to blow the whistle at any infraction, or any breach of elections laws and regulations.
Then came the Lower East Coast saga and 41 boxes that appeared to have ballots but none of the statutorily required supporting documents. These documents are required for the specific purpose of eliminating voter fraud. It strains credulity to accept that the absence of verifying documents in all these 41 boxes is of no consequence and does not boldly scream electoral fraud. It is shocking therefore that GECOM decided that the votes in those offending 41 boxes were to be included in the tabulation of the recount process. Fundamental questions cannot be answered. Are those votes valid? Are the persons who cast those ballots legitimate voters? What documentation supports the legitimacy of those ballots? This recount process is not merely about counting votes, it is about counting valid votes. If one is merely counting votes, then what is the point of this recount process with its meticulous reconciliation requirements?
Paragraph 14 of the Order of May 4, 2020 which authorises the recount makes it clear that the recount is about valid votes and not simply votes. Paragraph 14 requires submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. Section 96 requires a report to be completed by the Chief Elections Officer “…after calculation the total number of valid votes of electors”. The distinction between simply a vote and a valid vote is thus specifically made in our electoral law and incorporated by reference into the Order authorising the recount.
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines valid as based on truth or reason. Ascribing the ordinary meaning to the word valid therefore makes it clear that the votes cast in the 41 questionable boxes do not pass the validity test. There is no evidence in the boxes that the votes are based on truth or reason.
While GECOM’s authority to issue the Order authorising the recount derives from Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 of Act 15 of 2000, the power so derived is not limitless. Article 162(1)(b) requires that any action taken by GECOM must be “necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality and fairness”. By no measure could the inclusion of votes whose validity is patently suspect be considered necessary to achieve impartiality or fairness. This is especially true since all the questionable votes were purportedly cast from a well-known stronghold of one party and overwhelming favour that party. After all, the hue and cry that gave rise to the recount in the first place arose from far less well documented allegations of tabulating of invalid votes.
How could GECOM then, with all the documentation provided and virtually unchallenged by anyone, include votes that are clearly not valid. To do so is not only unfair but also illegal.
Yours truly,
B. Mayo Robertson

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News