,

People’s National Congress executive Aubrey Norton and Alliance For Change executive Cathy Hughes both contradicted President David Granger on the credibility of the March 2 elections during back to back interviews with reporters at National Recount Media Centre yesterday.

[from left] AFC Executive, Cathy Hughes and PNCR Executive, Aubrey Norton

When it was pointed out that the numerous complaints being brought by the Coalition regarding what they claim to be irregularities in the voting contradicted repeated assertions by the President that the elections were free, fair and credible, Norton responded that, “He never said that ‘credible’. He said they were free, fair and orderly. Now they are two different things.”
Norton then went on to deconstruct Granger’s words, arguing against saying the elections were free, fair or orderly, at all.
“You can’t check credibility from what happened on Elections Day,” he said, “and it should be obvious to you that that is the case, because on Elections Day, you would see people, they go and vote, etc. and you see it is orderly. You might say it is fair but people in PPP strongholds told us that the PPP was intimidating them and putting pressure on them, and that puts ‘free’ into question.”
“And what is being revealed here is making fair questionable,” Norton added.
In addition, he said that when an observer pronounces on the freeness, fairness and credibility of elections, they pronounce on an appearance, adding to a comment made by Leonard Craig that it was just a “general statement”.
“Now when somebody pronounces on elections like observers do,” Norton said, “a lot of times, they pronounce from appearance rather than actuality because if you are an observer, you are moving from area to area. You wouldn’t know all the shenanigans on the ground.”
For her part, Hughes said yesterday that the parties noted issues since before Election Day when it was time to revise the Official List of Electors. Reporters have asked on several occasions why the issues weren’t raised before the recount. Hughes said that the “system that got us to where we are today did not allow for us to make an objection that we know is true”.
Hughes said that the list would have been sanitized “if there was a claims and objections period… We would have made all these objections and it would have been sorted,” Hughes said. When it was pointed out by reporters that there was a claims and objections period, she responded “that’s what I said” saying that she was likely misheard due to her speaking through her mask.
“There was a claims and objections period,” she continued, “but remember that period was halted. Guys, you remember that, right? There was a claims and objections period, and it started and it went on for two to three weeks.”
The claims objection period late last year was in fact originally slated for 35 days, but then was extended subsequently to 49 days, or seven weeks.
Hughes claimed that the Coalition’s research since then has unearthed many of the discrepancies it is now raising, and that the party did not have its opportunity to raise them then. However, Coalition executive, Joseph Harmon had said after the elections that the party wanted Granger to be sworn in on the basis of the declarations GECOM had made at the time – declarations produced from a count of elections the party is now claiming was rife with issues before it even began.
Pointed to Harmon’s statement, Norton said, “That is a pronouncement, not a question. There is a difference between asking for somebody to be sworn in and making a pronouncement based on what he saw about wanting the President to be sworn in.”
Asked whether the Coalition has ruled out the use of the 10 current regional declarations to swear in a President, Norton said the Coalition is focusing on the recount now, not the declarations. He said that the President has made it clear that he will accept the results of the recount once GECOM determines the elections to be credible and that the recount is a proper one Harmon had said after the elections that the party wanted Granger to be sworn in on the basis of the declarations GECOM had made at the time – declarations produced from a count of elections the party is now claiming was rife with issues before it even began.
Pointed to Harmon’s statement, Norton said, “That is a pronouncement, not a question. There is a difference between asking for somebody to be sworn in and making a pronouncement based on what he saw about wanting the President to be sworn in.”
Asked whether the Coalition has ruled out the use of the 10 current regional declarations to swear in a President, Norton said the Coalition is focusing on the recount now, not the declarations. He said that the President has made it clear that he will accept the results of the recount once GECOM determines the elections to be credible and that the recount is a proper one