Dear Editor,
In the past few weeks, we continue to see the incumbent government (APNU/AFC) making claims regarding the conduct of the March 2020 elections. First, they claim they won the elections on the grounds of Mingo’s infamous Region 4 tabulation. This was legally challenged, and a recount exercise was initiated. Terrified of the recount exercise and the results it would yield, the incumbent started to make alleged anomalies from day 1 of the recount, mostly targeted at discrediting the validity of the votes cast in March 2020. These allegations were made specifically in the opposition’s strongholds.
Here is the killer: when these anomalies were statistically extrapolated on the back of a napkin, they amounted to a whopping 86,000 invalid votes, indicating there was systematic fraud in the opposition’s strongholds ONLY!?!
Some of these allegations have been reported in the observation reports to date for the respective regions, and some were being heard of for the first time by most stakeholders at an in-office press conference held by Mr. Harmon on May 25, 2020.
Given the sensitivity around these allegations, and the incumbent’s efforts to discredit the foundation of the electoral process and ultimately impact the outcome, it is important to understand why these allegations are almost impossible to have occurred. The procedures as laid out in the Representation of the People Act and enacted by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) have been time tested, modified over the decades, and are viewed by experts as solid. There are multiple layers of internal controls, segregation of duties, protection of voting assets, sign-offs, audit trail and other safeguards. As a matter of fact, it is because of this rigorous process that Mingo’s fraud was so easily uncovered.
Additionally, when engaged in a manual electoral process, some of these anomalies are common and were noted by accredited observers in prior Guyana elections.
Based upon the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the allegations made by the incumbent are nearly impossible to have occurred. Any errors detected have been deemed immaterial, and do not have an impact on the valid votes cast in determining a winner. Observations noted in the observations report during the recount as well as those noted by independent observers should be evaluated by GECOM and considered in making improvements to the process going forward. To date, no material weakness was identified to deem the electoral process systemically flawed. A credible winner can therefore be announced based upon the party receiving most of the total valid votes.
Warmest regards,
Bibi Ramdayal, CPA
| Allegations | Internal controls and safeguards in place to mitigate | |
| 1. Voters list is padded | a. List was cleansed by GECOM of the deceased and migrated citizens
b. identifications were issued with proper paperwork and proof of residency/citizenship c. period of claims and objections for major political parties was extended. Recommendations were reviewed and adjustments made by GECOM Actual Impact – the procedures above mitigate invalid voters from being on the list. Even with a bloated list, there are other controls and processes in place at the polling stations to ensure that only valid votes are cast. |
d. |
| 2. Missing documentation
|
a. Mostly due to human error or misplacement by polling staff
b. None of the primary voting assets (ink, ballot papers or Statements of Poll) which would allow for fraudulent votes to be cast were missing c. missing documentation discovered during the recount do not have an impact on the actual votes cast Actual Impact – this does not have an impact on the number of votes cast to date, and these incidences are not significant to indicate there was a material breakdown in controls on E-Day. |
d. |
| 3. Improper making on ballots | This is most likely attributed to human error, and upon second review in the recount, it was determined these should be included/excluded.
Actual Impact – adjustment to the count was made accordingly; and, to date, this does not have a material impact on the total votes cast. The volume does not indicate that there is any significant breakdown in controls. |
|
| 4. Dead and ineligible migrants voting | These allegations are unfounded, with no conclusive evidence provide by the incumbent that dead and ineligible migrant persons voted. Limited dead certificates submitted show that those individuals, although on the voters list, were not marked as voting. Additionally, immigration or travel papers were not submitted to prove that ineligible migrants voted.
Below are the safeguards in place on E-Day to support that this was highly unlikely: · Voters have 2 layers of ID verification · There is limited access to primary voting assets · Semi-permanent ink used on voter’s index finger is difficult to remove · Voting and counting of the ballots occurred in the presence of GECOM staff, party agents, local observers, international observers · Matters arising on E-Day were transparent and documented · Statements of Poll (SOPs) are signed off by major stakeholders as to their accuracy and credibility and are posted for public access · No evidence of massive collusion amongst GECOM staff, polling agents and international and local observers on E-Day. In Fact, all stakeholders, including independent observers, attested that the voting process was credible. · Collusion at 2,339 polling stations with over 17,000 individuals involved would require extensive coordination, and is not likely to go undetected. Collusion with a few individuals at the executive level (as in the case with Mingo) is easier to pull off. However, because of the transparency of the Guyana electoral process, this was promptly detected. Actual Impact – to date, there is no proof to indicate that this occurred. |
|
| 5. False ballot papers | a. Each ballot paper is printed with a unique marking and serial number to validate its authenticity.
b. At the end of E-Day, all ballots were securely locked and sealed with codes/locks, and only GECOM and major political parties had access to them. c. Any tampering would have to involve these stakeholders, and tampering by any one stakeholder would be visible. The ballot boxes are then securely locked in large containers, making it difficult for any one key stakeholder to access. d. As part of the recount, these boxes are closely examined, and there is no evidence that these boxes were tampered with. e. As part of the recount, the ballot papers are also examined by GECOM, party representatives, and independent observers for authenticity. Actual Impact – to date GECOM has not identified any false ballot papers as part of the recount. |
f. |
| 6. Disciplined service ballots deemed invalid | It is impossible to decipher which votes belong to disciplined service voters, as they are combined with other votes. A blanket claim that these were excluded has no merit. In general, votes not stamped, properly marked etc. are excluded from the count because they do not meet the requirements of a valid vote as laid out in the Representation of the People Act. These principles are consistently applied to all votes.
Actual Impact – to date, invalid votes were properly excluded from the count. However, the impact is not material to the overall votes cast |
|
