Alexander accuses GECOM of spreading propaganda

Sep 30, 2022 News

…restates call for internal review of controversial 2020 elections

Kaieteur News – Opposition Commissioner Vincent Alexander has reiterated the position that the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) is within its legal right if it chooses to conduct a review of its performance during the controversial 2020 general elections. He reaffirmed this stance in a public missive, as he addressed this and another issue which he said that GECOM as well as Government Commissioners are using in their perpetuation of falsehoods.

Opposition Commissioner Vincent Alexander

The GECOM and representatives of the governing People’s Progressive Party Government recently made public statements accusing Alexander of misrepresenting a position of the GECOM Chairperson, Justice (retired) Claudette Singh. They alleged that Alexander was being untruthful when he accused the Chair of refusing to extend the recently concluded claims period. However, despite clearing up the matter, Alexander is adamant that the two sides not only continued to perpetuate the untruth, but continued to misrepresent his position on another matter.

In the missive, Alexander said that what was being spewed is of a partisan nature, which does not reflect “a consensus or unanimity of the Commission”. He explained that recently, he had drawn attention to the erroneous nature of a GECOM release and a release from the three PPP/C appointed Commissioners, both of which purported that he had accused the Chairperson of taking a decision not to extend the period for Claims. What happened, he said, was that the publisher of his letter attributed a headline to the letter that did not reflect its content. Alexander said that the Editors normally coin the headline/title for letters to the Editor. “Yet GECOM, and the three Commissioners erroneously, out of carelessness or propagandistic mal-intent attributed to me, and dwelt on what was in, the headline, while ignoring the content of my letter, which did not accuse the Chairperson of the purported decision- not to extent the period for Claims.”

The Commissioner said that while such occurrence may be forgiven as an error or oversight, any reoccurrence can only be construed as intentional and unethical, at least. “This is undoubtedly the case with GECOM`s most recent Press Release,” he continued. He said GECOM sought to convey the impression that the Opposition appointed Commissioners were insisting that GECOM conduct an investigation into electoral malfeasance, in defiance of the Chairperson`s ‘Ruling’ that such investigations are the sole purview of the High Court.

“The first observation to be made in that regard, is that the Court does not investigate, it adjudicates hence an investigation does necessarily not fly in the face of the constitutional provisions in relation to the jurisdiction of the High Court,” Alexander submitted. “However, let’s assume that I am wrong in my aforementioned contention, that does not relieve GECOM and the PPP/C appointed Commissioners of their notoriety”, he said. He contended that “the fact of the matter is that the call of the Opposition appointed Commissioners is for a review of GECOM`s operations to determine whether there are discernible weaknesses in its system that need to be addressed if GECOM is to improve on its system in pursuit of the constitutional requirement for GECOM to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance in the conduct of elections.” He said it is grossly misleading for GECOM to equate the call, by the Opposition appointed Commissioners, for it to conduct ‘an independent review…’ and the recommendations to improve on the methods employed in the electoral system, as a call for GECOM to conduct internal investigations into allegations of electoral fraud that were reported to have occurred during the 2nd March, 2020 General and Regional Elections.

He said that GECOM is not only misleading the public on what is being called for by the Opposition appointed Commissioners, but that “it is guilty of dereliction, in so far as it is unprepared to review/evaluate its own performance as a basis for enhancing its systems and its operations.” GECOM has embarked upon a campaign that is designed to justify its intentional omissions, such as a review of its operations and the introduction of biometric (finger-print) identification at the place of poll,” Alexander charged.