GECOM’s decisions defy logics; political determinations are trumping rule of law  

Sep 10, 2022 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

There is much to be said about the decisions currently being made by GECOM, albeit by majority vote with the Chairperson and the Government appointed Commissioners constituting the majority, on each occasion.

The recent decision to release documents submitted by the APNU/AFC during the recount of the 2020 elections results trumps recent GECOM decisions, and at the same time exemplifies the nature of those decisions. Recently, the Opposition appointed Commissioners tabled a motion calling for an internal review of GECOM`s operations. The expressed intentions of the motion were to: “gain a better understanding of the bases for the aforementioned allegations and occurrences and to consider if there are existing or potential weaknesses in the process employed by GECOM for the conduct of elections” and to make recommendations “in an effort to improve on the methods and processes employed in the electoral system and to remove the bases for the possible reoccurrence of maladies, procedural or otherwise, that occurred or may occur under the current  process.” This motion was voted down by the majority, although the Constitution in Article 162(b) clearly mandates GECOM to “issue such instructions and take such action as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of this Constitution or any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to the matters aforesaid.” Incidentally, those voting down the motion, when convenient, normally pay lip service to “impartiality, fairness and compliance”.

One would expect the Commission, as a matter of course, to review its operations as the basis for ensuring that it perfects its system, and in so doing protect and/or enhance “impartiality, fairness and compliance”, more so, in circumstances where many allegations were made about the imperfection and breaches of the system. Yet, the Chair concurred with the contention that to conduct the inquiry would have resulted in a breach of Article 163(b) (i), which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court to determine whether an election “either generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been, or may have been, affected by any unlawful act or omission”. The motion in no form or way sought to do the aforementioned. It merely sought to identify possible flaws in the system with the aim of rectifying and/or enhancing the system.

Most ironically, the recent request from the Attorney General for the release of documents, purporting voter impersonation, submitted to GECOM by the APNU/AFC and subsequently forwarded to the Chief Immigration Officer and the Registrar of births and deaths for verification, was granted although the requested documents were not the returns from the Chief Immigration Officer or the Registrar of births and deaths. Those documents/returns are in the possession of GECOM and substantiate the APNU/AFC allegations that there was impersonation. The Attorney General`s request clearly was not intended to determine the truth, since the authorised statutory bodies had already pronounced on them and advised GECOM. He clearly, in his own words, is seeking to confirm the accuracy of documents which had already been subjected to a verification process by the bodies statutorily responsible for their verification. If he was in search of the truth, he should have requested the responses from the statutory agencies rather than the documents that articulated the allegation of impersonation. One is left to wonder where the Attorney General will turn to for his verification and of what use would be any such verification in the face of the previous official/authentic verification.

Be that as it may, GECOM`s decision reeks for the following additional reasons:-

(1) The matter of determining electoral malfeasance is clearly within the jurisdiction of the High Court as provided for in Article 163 of the Constitution. GECOM itself recognised, but misapplied, that provision when it disallowed its own internal review. Now, it is facilitating the Attorney General`s adventure into the domain of the High Court.

(2) The documents in question have been tendered in, at least one of, the ongoing petitions.

That renders the matter sub judice, and prohibits anyone  from making public comments on the matter as the Attorney General has clearly done in his letter of request when he stated “these are grave  allegations, and as baseless and unfounded as they were proven to be”. He is clearly not demonstrating the impartiality, which he so often touts.

GECOM`s decisions defy logics and clearly suggest that political determinations are trumping the Rule-of-Law. It also brings into question the Chairperson`s recent contention that “all of her actions are in accordance with the law”.

Regards,

Vincent Alexander

GECOM Commissioner

 

 

---

---