Dear Editor,
Point “Q” of the Commission’s constitutional mandate speaks to “identify and analyse factors inhibiting the attainment of harmonious relations between ethnic groups…and to make recommendations”. Political developments that lead to discontent are major historical factors. The post-March 2, 2020 election period was no different and, in my view, should not have been ignored in the context of the Commission’s role in promoting harmony.
Permit me to state instances when the Commission should have acted but it didn’t.
1. Having investigated employment practices at GECOM and from its own findings, the Commission, despite calls by a few Commissioners, never recommended the reinstatement of Mr Vishnu Persaud as the DCEO despite its findings that he was the most qualified candidate and that he was the first candidate in the history of GECOM who attained the highest score but not appointed.
2. As a result of the successfully passed December 21, 2018 NCM and with Parliament not agreeing to an extension of the constitutional 90-day timeframe, the elections were held a year after they were constitutionally due. While court cases ensued, the Commission in a September 18, 2019 Press Release, urged constitutional adherence and a swift resolution to the then political impasse; that was 9 months after the NCM; 6 months after the constitutional due date for the elections. Before that Press Release, it was felt by some Commissioners that the Commission cannot tell GECOM what to do. While that may be so, nothing in my view prevented the Commission before September 18, 2019, as disquiet grew, from calling for the said constitutional adherence with regard to the holding of elections within the constitutionally stipulated 90-day timeframe taking into consideration the impact on race relations.
3. The initial draft of that September 18, 2019 Press Release stated, “The Commission also respects the independence of GECOM as safeguarded in the Constitution. However, it believes that any deviation from constitutional mandated processes could create an environment that potentially impinges on confidence and impartiality. In view of the final ruling and consequential orders of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in June this year, the Commission is cognizant of the constitutional timeframe for holding elections catering for the circumstances at hand. It is cognizant that timeframe which should have been adhered to as per our Constitution, would regrettably not be met thereby creating an opportunity for the belief of democratic regression”. That was edited to read, “The Commission urges patience as GECOM executes its mandate to arrive at a date for the elections”. Urging patience, while necessary, but in the context referred for adherence to constitutional elections timeframe, taking recourse to the court into consideration, can possibly be interpreted as turning a blind eye to constitutional transgression which derives democratic regression, and in turn, a disruption of peace. In that context, I felt that calling for the upholding of democracy is not divorced from the general mandate of the Commission.
4. The Commission, having observed the voting process and the counting of votes on March 2, at some polling places in parts of the country, issued a statement on March 6, 2020, pointing out those processes to be free, fair and transparent. It also urged GECOM to safeguard the integrity of the elections by ensuring that the verification and tabulation process with regard to Region 4, as reflected in The Representation of the People Act, is followed, and that transparency is foremost. While the Commission subsequently observed the verification and tabulation of Statements of Poll (SoPs) for Region 4, it did not pronounce on acts which were revealed and deemed unconstitutional and which further exacerbated discontent.
5. Caricom recognised the Commission as an important stakeholder as evident from the meeting with its then Chairperson and the Chairman of the Commission. The Commission, birthed out of political gridlock, did not make any public statement on the actual findings of the recount or submitted a final report of its observations. In fact, mention of Caricom’s role as a stakeholder was edited out from a Press Release.
All observer groups and the local court in March, declared the verification process of Region 4 SoPs as fraudulent and unlawful. All who observed the recount declared it fair and transparent.
I truly believe that the Commission missed opportunities to meaningfully intervene over time in the interest of the nation. Sadly, at that time, one Commissioner peddled the notion that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was not the highest and final means of legal recourse of our country. That Commissioner recently pointed out that misinformation contributed to that conclusion.
I believe, as a Commission, we could not continue to ignore the genesis of the political impasse and pointed out that with the public not oblivious of any appearance of such avoidance, might have resulted in them perceiving the Commission as being selective, inconsistent, unwilling or even incapable of dealing with contentions that emanated from political developments.
I stated that the Commission’s words have weight and with the seeming continual avoidance during its tenure to frontally identify factors that inhibit the attainment of harmonious relations between the ethnic groups with regard to the NCM and the elections, I asked, what would have been the Commission’s position had the PPP/C been in Government and the said scenario played out in 2018?
That aside, the Commission did not heed the advice of its Legal Officer to summon leaders of the previous Government and others involved, to denounce statements made during the violence at West Coast Berbice following the heinous killings of the Henry cousins. Time passed and escalation of tension were reasons offered for not heeding the Legal Officer’s advice.
In addition, despite strong recommendations from the Legal Officer, the Commission choose to take a vote to dispatch a letter to current APNU/AFC Member of Parliament, Sherod Duncan, to note its concerns over comments he made on a social media programme. Such a process was routine for others. Why the need for a vote on him? Currently, the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit, in his analysis on February 18, 2021, stated that Mr Duncan, in a subsequent programme, violated the Racial Hostility Act and the Representation of the People Act since the comment has the potential excite ill-will and foster hatred based on race. No action has been taken thus far. Leader of the Liberty and Justice Party, Mr Lennox Shuman, was immediately summoned to answer for comments he made on a public programme.
I trust that the inference is not ambiguous.
Respectfully,
Neaz Subhan
Commissioner
