APNU/AFC undermining credibility of elections recount – PPP/C

…as coalition’s latest ‘anomaly’ is to dig deeper for “dead votes”, migrated Guyanese
…but contradicts its own presidential candidate’s position to
US Govt, of process being free and fair

The coalition A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance for Change’s (APNU/AFC) latest ‘anomaly’ at the National Recount exercise underway at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) is to make a claim that a dead person has voted, without producing evidence and that the Elections Commission must investigate its claims. This has been viewed by the Opposition as the coliation’s new move to undermind the credibility of of the elections recount.

Additionally, the coalition is insisting that ‘Death Certificates’ in its possession and for which it is still looking for a way to turn over to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), were not obtained nefariously since the party or its members would have paid the fees for the documents.

Nefarious methods
The positions were adumbrated by APNU/AFC caretaker Minister, Cathy Hughes. The AFC Executive

Member made the claims in an impromptu press engagement, minutes after People’s Progressive Party GECOM Commissioner, Sase Gunraj called out the coalition over its use and access to death and immigration records.
During the course of the first week of the recount exercise, a number of coalition agents objected to a series of votes cast on the grounds that the persons had either migrated or were dead.
Gunraj told media operatives that the coalition is still to submit any of the purported records to the Commission.
Addressing the use of death and immigration records, the GECOM Commissioner told reporters, “I am concerned as to who has access to those documents and whether those documents are being accessed for nefarious reasons.”
Gunraj, himself a practicing attorney-at-law, reminded that records such as Birth and Death Certificates fall under the ambit of the General Registrar’s Office and that this agency is under the control of a Government Department.
Similarly, immigration records, according to Gunaj, fall under the Central Immigration and Passport Office, which is an arm of the Guyana Police Force—another Government agency.
He suggested that like tax records, such documents should not be released without “proper channels.”

State custody
Additionally, it was noted that on Friday, the GRO was, in fact, closed to the public.
Addressing the matter of the records being used by the APNU/AFC during the recounting of the ballots, Gunraj told reporters, “I have seen an attempt yesterday in one of these station where one of the representatives of the APNU/AFC sought to produce a document purportedly emanating from the Immigration Department.”
He explained, however, that the document was later criticised to be “so poorly constructed that a four-year-old could have done so.”
The PPP Commissioner used the occasion to point to provisions in the law for the accessing of categories of information and identified as an example, the Access to Information Act with the constitutionally-appointed and protected Commissioner of Information.
He suggested, “it is worrisome to see persons purporting to have those documents in their hands whether they are legitimate or not, the main fact that they have access to it, is of concern.”
The Commissioner’s position did not resonate amicably in the coalition camp as was evidenced when APNU/AFC’s Hughes rushed to the media to refute any nefarious motives on the part of the coalition and that the party was, in fact, looking for a way to get the document to the Commission.

No provisions
Hughes told media operatives the party had been canvassing communities even before the March 2 General and Regional Elections.
Proceeding to contradict, APNU/AFC’s Presidential Candidate David Granger—who up to Friday in a correspondence with the US Government maintained that the March 2 elections were free and fair—Hughes told media operatives that the coalition has long known about the anomalies marring the Elections Day vote.
Hughes claimed that during the earlier Claims and Objections period, parties were allowed to scrutinise the list and that this is what APNU/AFC did.
She told media operatives it is because the party had in its possession the death records all along that the objections could have been raised since the electoral system did not provide for the coalition to make an objection prior “and that is why now this is when we have to make the objections.”
Giving the APNU/AFC’s perspective on the entire affair, Hughes then went on to claim that the same Claims and Objections period it used to find the dead persons, did not, in fact, happen.
She maintained that “the system that got us to where we are today did not allow us to make an objection” and told reporters, “if there was Claims and Objections period, the list would have been sanitised; and we would have made all these objections and it would have been sorted.”
Claiming to want to know the Commission’s intentions with regards its observations of dead and migrated persons voting, Hughes said: “it’s for them [GECOM] to disprove.”
According to her, the narrative needs to now be changed to whether the certificates the party is producing are authentic.
Without taking questions, Minister Hughes on leaving the podium was quickly reminded that there was, in fact, a Claims and Objections period—a period she had referred to as being used to identify the dead persons. That period lasted for over seven weeks.

Flip-flop
She then denied saying that there was not a Claims and Objections period, saying, “there was a Claims and Objections period” and introduced a new element to the equation saying “but remember that period was halted.”
Reaffirming her new position this time, Hughes said “yes there was a Claims and Objections period” and then went on to again claim this was the time when such concerns are normally raised.
According to Hughes, political parties are in possession of the list which is shared with its agents that would be able to ascertain whether some of the persons listed as alive aren’t, in fact, dead.
Dismissing Gunraj’s fears of nefarious motives, Hughes insisted “we have had this information for a long time and we are calling on GECOM to explain how we are going to look at all these anomalies and discrepancies that we are seeing.”
Unable to give a number for the death certificates that the party has to which it intends to raise objections to during the recount exercise, Hughes told reporters “what I would say is that we have quite a few.”

Bizarre stories
The Minister again claimed ignorance on the step forward saying “we are willing to produce them to GECOM and the question that we have been asking is what is the process, what happens after now…what is the process, we don’t have an answer to that yet.”
The Minister at this point claimed that according to legal opinions submitted to the party, “once we make the objection and give the name, it is for GECOM to investigate, so GECOM is the one that will have to go to the register of deaths and say do you have a death certificate for this individual.”
Hughes’ ‘ludicrous claims’ were quickly pounced on by PPP party agent, Anil Nandlall, who in rebutting the caretaker Minister pointed to what he called the APNU/AFC’s changing narrative and now “bizarre allegations.”
He quickly reminded that the Claims and Objections period referred to by Hughes was, in fact, done by the Commission and that the coalition even objected to a list of 1000 names, claiming the persons were dead.
He said unlike the truncated version of a Claims and Objections period referred to by Hughes, GECOM, in fact, extended the service and had held an inquiry into the APNU/AFC’s claims, which were found to be without merit.
According to Nandlall, the APNU/AFC member, by her suggestions, is, in fact, slandering thousands of GECOM professionals such as Presiding Officers across the count.
He concluded that “every story they fabricate is more bizarre than the previous one…now they have Death Certificates that they had all the time.”