Use contrived, nonsensical objections in election petition – Chris Ram to APNU/AFC

Guyanese has for 99 days now waited for the declaration of the results of the March 2, General and Regional Elections and with the completion of the recount of the ballots cast, “it is time that this country moves on, with a President, Parliament, a Government and a Budget in place.”

This is the view held by outspoken political commentator and attorney-at-law, Christopher Ram, who in a public missive on Monday, suggested that the governing coalition A Partnership for National Unity, Alliance for Change (APNU/ AFC) could pursue an election petition, if here are reasonable grounds but that the challenges raised by the party during the exercise were, “mostly contrived and nonsensical.’
According to Ram, “an election petition can be pursued, if there are reasonable grounds.”
He was adamant however, “in my opinion, it is not in the national interest, or indeed its own interest, for the APNU/AFC to consume all its energies on elections that have now been held.”

Acknowledging the completion of the recount activity as a milestone, Ram in his public missive noted that it is now for the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), to consolidate the completed tabulations “along with a summary of the observation reports from the recount, send a report to the Commission no later than June 13.”
Ram in his writings noted that “contrary to what (Caretaker President) David Granger has said, the CARICOM (Caribbean Community) Scrutinising Team (CST) has no date by which to submit a report to the Commission which may include conclusions and recommendations…This type of documentation is typical of observer teams but because of its special role, the CST will submit its report to GECOM, presumably first reporting to the CARICOM Chair.”
The vocal commentator said, that under the Order, GECOM is specifically mandated to deliberate over the CEO’s report and according to Granger, over the CARICOM report as well and that part of the deliberation, is the determination by the Commission, whether to request the CEO to use the data submitted by him as the basis for a report to ascertain and declare the results of the elections.
Ram posited, “this may sound simple enough but it is unclear whether APNU/AFC will cooperate in these further steps to conclude the process, ending with the swearing in of the President.”

He has since drawn reference to the fact the Coalition has been refusing to sign all but one of the Statements of Recounts and may very well refuse to sign matrices to be submitted to the CEO.
He noted, “that while that is unlikely to stall the process, the statement by the Coalition after GECOM had decided to tabulate the East Coast ballots is more serious; declaring that GECOM must give the rationale for what APNU/AFC referred to as an inexplicable decision, the Coalition made clear its non-acceptance of the tabulated vote which it claimed contained several votes which are fraudulent.”
Ram suggests it is unclear how the coalition reached that conclusion since its initial case was that the votes could not be tabulated because of the absence of documents.
He noted too that while the term “fraudulent” is of wide import, it is used only three times in the Representation of the People Act and suggested “unless the APNU+AFC is somehow accusing GECOM officials of fraud, the use of the term is unfortunate, misleading and incorrect.”
According to Ram, it is unlikely that the author of the statement would have used that word had s/he been familiar with elections principles and laws.
The eminent local chartered accountant and attorney at law, was adamant “if the recount has proved one thing it is that the only clear fraud was committed by the Returning Officer for District No. 4 (Clairmont Mingo).
He said with respect to GECOM’s rationale for its decision on the East Coast boxes, “that too is simple” and that “even if there is fraud or gross negligence on the part of GECOM, the sacred principle is whether the will of the voters can be seen on the facts of the case.”
According to Ram, “the principle is that elections should reflect the wish of the people, expressed through the ballot box and that the Court should put first and foremost the intention of the electorate.”