What hinders GECOM from taking decisive action against errant staffers now?

Mar 19, 2021 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

Kaieteur News – I was wondering if Guyanese had completely forgotten the five months election ordeal and the man at the center of it (Lowenfield) until I saw a letter by Neil Adams, “Why is Lowenfield still on the job?” in another section of the media. I felt compelled to add my two cents to this nuisance or national “eye pass.” I can understand the relief that people felt after President Ali was sworn in and GECOM was dropped from the radar, but there will be more elections in the future and it seems that the contracts for Lowenfield and others at GECOM are set in stone – irrevocable!
The wiles of Lowenfield is well documented – concocting his own results, refusing to publish GECOM’s SOPs, refusing to declare the results generated by the recount. Recently I watched in disgust as Lowenfield handed over the said GECOM’s SOPs that he had refused to publish, to the court registrar for safekeeping on the orders of the Chief Justice in preparation for the election petition. It struck me to think how silly the drafters of the constitution were, not to put checks and balances in the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) to stop errant office bearers from committing electoral fraud with impunity.
Knowing what Lowenfield did, and learning that he collected over $25 million in salaries from 2020 to present day at the recent budget debates, ripped the patriotism out of almost every Guyanese. The knowledge that Lowenfield continues to collect his super salary adds to the quintessential reasons for Guyanese to hate this country. It makes independence pale in comparison to colonialism. The moot, “Massa days were better,” has become an easier debate to win!
The language in the ROPA explains the job description of the Chief Elections Officer’s role in the delivery of election results, without prescribing what should be the consequences if he/she deviates – it is the same for every office bearer in high places. I see no difficulty in adding a deterrence of say 10 years in prison for anyone who obfuscates. Sadly! VP Jagdeo seems to want deterrence for GECOM staff only. If we are going to stop corruption, it has to be for everyone in high places.
Back to Lowenfield! It is a known and accepted fact that a commission is empowered to control any organization under its ambit. When the election imbroglio had encountered Lowenfield’s obfuscation after the recount, I would have loved to see a PPP commissioner raise the issue of dismissing Lowenfield on popular vote by the commission. Of course, it would have been three versus three, but it would have been interesting to see which side of the fence the Chairman would have stepped down. I am inclined to think that this could still be done.

Respectfully,
Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News