GECOM’s mechanism has failed miserably (Pt 1)

Dear Editor,
September 21, 2018, was Nomination Day for the submissions of various lists of backers and recommended candidates, who will be contesting the November 12 Local Government Elections (LGE). Leading up to this particular activity, there has been a lot of hype regarding the expected performance of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), given the many seemingly justified public criticisms to which the organisations has been exposed.
The experiences of many of those individuals and groups of persons with the assigned GECOM’s Returning Officers (RO) on Nomination Day, was in many ways sordid and indeed one to remember. In particular, the encounters in many instances were imbued with disastrous inconsistencies, coupled to a strongly confrontational attitude by many of the RO.
At one Local Authority Area (LAA), the RO in the presence of a member of the Elections Commission requested that the backers list be written up in alphabetical order. Now the practicality of this demand by the RO, informs of a very irrational and senseless position that is very frustrating. There is no supporting legislation to this demand, and it is very vexing that simplification of the process seemingly conflicts with GECOM’s approach.
The fact is that in order to get backers support, individual candidates and groups would have had to engage community residents at different instances. Further, verify the respective particulars of the backers on the list and have the person affix their signature as the recommender. Such engagements in practice, only occur on occasions when it is most for the recommending party. Is GECOM asking candidates to assemble backers in one location and have the persons wait to have all checks done and placed in a particular order before they could sign?
In another LAA, the RO demanded that the leader of the list deliver to her photocopies of the constituency as well as the Proportional Representation declaration forms.
One could easily rationalise that these uncertified copies have no legal bearing and that the adopted posture was just to make life hard, and frustrate the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) presenter of the list in this case.
Another stupid, flagrant and conflicting request from one RO was that the deputy leader of the list must be on the constituency list. This demand lacks any legislative authority and conflict with the free option of contesting groups.
The PPP has reported receiving complaints of electoral malpractices in 42 LAAs. It is also very sad that there are serious claims of breaches against representatives of both the A Partner for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC); who apparently duped people into signing backers lists and candidate forms.
There is indeed a lot of evidence in the public domain of these very serious claims. The nation therefore expects a thorough investigation of these issues and some measure of sanctions to be impose by GECOM where the breaches are confirmed.
The situation just cannot be accommodated and there must be strong penalties for the persons who committed these lawless offences.

Sincerely,
Neil Kumar