There have been mounting criticisms against Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Rtd) Claudette Singh for voting against several of the motions put forward by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Commissioners at the last GECOM meeting – all aimed at ensuring that the electoral body gets back on track and seriously work towards delivering credible elections results to the nation.
Given all that had transpired in relation to the declaration of questionable results for District Four by Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, one would have thought that GECOM, more particularly the Chairperson herself, would have taken and supported all the measures she possibly can to rebuild public trust in the organisation since the general perception at the moment is that GECOM, in its present configuration, cannot be relied upon to run-off free, fair, and credible elections.
In our view, Justice Singh has lost yet another opportunity, to prove to the nation that she is serious about ensuring the electoral process is concluded in an expeditious, fair and transparent manner. The proposals put forward by the PPP were all intended to bring greater transparency to the entire process. It, therefore, baffles the mind of what level of reasoning was used by the Chair to side with the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC)-aligned Commissioners to reject the proposals.
For example, after all the madness that took place with Mingo and others in relation to the tabulation of Statements of Polls (SoPs) for District Four and the Chairperson’s public commitment to act fairly and transparently, the Chair voted to reject a proposal to allow the Audit Office of Guyana or a private audit firm to aid and scrutinise the exercise, while at the same time retaining questionable staff members who were front and centre in their attempts to foist on the nation, fraudulent results aimed at handing a victory to the APNU/AFC.
Equally baffling was the Chairperson’s rejection of the proposal for the Commissioners to be given the SoPs, to which they have a legal entitlement. Many have been asking what is there to conceal. What’s the reason for not making the documents available even though they would have already been publicly posted outside the various polling stations at the close of polls?
Further, amongst the most baffling was the Chair’s rejection of a proposal to have the recount livestreamed. Almost every stakeholder involved in the elections had signalled support for going this route, more so, because it would have boosted public confidence in the process, which would have also made it easier for the results to be accepted by all parties.
In her justification for rejecting the proposal, Justice Singh cited Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act, which speaks to the maintenance of the secrecy of the count. That section states that “Every person attending at the count of votes shall maintain and not communicate any information obtained at the count as to the list of candidates for which any vote has been given” and according to Justice Singh, “Because of the secrecy, they cannot show the ballot but what they can do, they can show the results after the results would have been tabulated, I have no problem with that.”
However, legal minds, including Attorneys Anil Nandlall and Sanjeev Datadin have argued that GECOM is legally empowered to stream the national recount live for the benefit of the general public, and are of the view that Section 90 is not applicable to the live streaming of the recount in the way that the GECOM Chair is implying.
In any event, the recount is being done under Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act and Article 162(1)(b) of the Constitution, both of which empower GECOM to issue such instructions and take such actions as appear to it necessary and expedient to ensure impartiality and fairness.
It must be noted too that Justice Singh herself, in her written submissions to the court, highlighted the importance of GECOM and the electoral process enjoying public confidence so that the election results would be accepted by all. The live streaming of the process and the other proposals contained in the PPP’s motions would have enhanced impartiality and fairness. The explanation provided by the GECOM Chair following her rejection of the proposals does not match her words.
The former Judge must be well aware that the law is not an ass and was never intended to prevent the usage of additional measures aimed at providing higher levels of guarantees for transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
