Elections were manipulated – 3 GECOM Commissioners
May 24, 2015 By
Three of the six Commissioners of the Guyana Elections Commissions (GECOM) say they strongly believe, based on factual
<dl class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_113744" style="width: 265px;"><dt class="wp-caption-dt">
</dt><dd class="wp-caption-dd">GECOM Commissioner Mohamood Shaw</dd></dl>evidence, that the General and Regional Elections 2015 were rigged. In a press statement, the three Commissioners: Mohamood Shaw, Athmaram Mangar and Sase Gunraj; all of whom were nominated by the ruling Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) stated they have enough reasons to accurately declared that the Elections were far from free and fair. The statement explained in details, the series of irregularly activities within GECOM that led them to believe that Elections were indeed rigged. Starting with a Commissioners meeting on May 13, prior to the announcement of the preliminary results, the Commissioners related that the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield acknowledged that there were significant disturbances with the electoral process. “The Chief Elections Officer…disclosed that it goes against his conscience to disclose the results in his possession,” the statement noted. Some reasons why it is assumed that Lowenfield went against his conscience is because he mentioned the fact that there were “variances in the data contained in the Statements of Poll within his and those in the possession of the Returning Officers of the respective Electoral Districts; and the number of votes cast as recorded on some of the Statements of Poll in his possession far exceeded the number of electors on the official list of electors for the corresponding division.
Fake Statement of Polls Also, the statement noted that the layout of some of the Statements of Poll that were received by the CEO differed from those
<dl class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_113745" style="width: 250px;"><dt class="wp-caption-dt">
</dt><dd class="wp-caption-dd">GECOM Commissioner Athmaram Mangar</dd></dl>officially issued by GECOM which led to the realisation that fake Statement of Polls were involved. “This view was shared by several members of the Commission who recalled observing several different Statements of Poll before they reached the Chief Elections Officer. This led to the belief by the Commission that there were fraudulent Statements of Poll which were inserted into the GECOM machinery, and were eventually used in the tabulation of the final results,” it read. Following that revelation, the Commissioners said it was unanimously agreed during the said meeting that the Statements of Poll deemed to be irregular by the Lowenfield would not be used in the release of the preliminary results by him.
Preliminary Results Moving along to the Press Conference at 9pm, Lowenfield, against his conscience, announced that results of 1809 polling stations (excluding results from 490 polling stations). “This led us to the belief that there were at least 490 Statements of Poll affected by the irregularities disclosed by the Chief Elections Officer,” the Commissioners concluded. Then on May 14, Lowendfield made another public announcement of the irregularities discovered on the previous day. “Notwithstanding the public disclosures by the Chief Elections Officer, he proceeded to announce the preliminary results of all 2299 polling stations across the country,” the statement noted.
22 ballot boxes On May 15, a delegation from the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) met with the Commission to discuss the said irregularities and provided a sample of 22 Statements of Poll and requested that the corresponding ballot boxes be opened to verify the said results. The statement said the Chairman, Dr Steve Surujbally, gave an undertaking to open the said 22 ballot boxes be opened to verify the said results. This position was later recanted at a meeting of the Commission that continued immediately after the departure of the delegation aforesaid.
Following this, the three Commissioners said they made requests of the CEO, pursuant to the disclosures aforesaid, for the information on several concerns, including: the steps taken to ascertain the authenticity of and the information contained in all the Statements of Poll within his possession; the total number of Statements of Poll affected by the irregularities; steps taken to correct the discrepancies as aforesaid; and the extent to which the discrepancies affected the overall results of the said elections. On May 16, the statement noted that the CEO “refused and/or neglected to provide to the Commission, the requested information.” It added, “At that meeting, we were presented with the official declarations of the Returning Officers of each of the 10 Electoral Districts of Guyana, as well as, 2 spreadsheets, both under the hand of Mr. Keith Lowenfield, Chief Elections Officer, containing the results of the Regional and General Elections. The results were not presented in a manual form, as is also required by law. “Upon our request, a copy of the report of the Information Technology Department, which was tasked with encoding and tabulating data contained in Statements of Poll from all of the Electoral Divisions across Guyana, was provided. The report from the Information Technology Department differed significantly from the spreadsheets presented by the Chief Elections Officer, and the Chairman withdrew the said report. “In light of the glaring inconsistencies and in the absence of satisfactory explanations of same, we were left no option but to vote against the declaration and publication of the said results by the Commission. The other 3 (three) members of the Commission, along with the Chairman, then voted in favour of the said declaration and publication of the said results.” Then on May 20, one of the Commissioners- Sase R. Gunraj wrote, in his capacity as a Commissioner, to Lowenfield, in his capacity as CEO, requesting the information on results from each Electoral District, disaggregated by Polling Division, as compiled by the Chief Elections Officer; results from each Electoral District, disaggregated by Polling Division, as compiled by the Returning Officer of each Electoral District; report from the Information Technology Department, disaggregated by Polling Station; photocopies and/or electronic copies of Statements of Poll of each Polling Station, as submitted to the Chief Elections Officer; and photocopies and/or electronic copies of Statements of Poll of each Polling Station, as submitted to the Returning Officer of each Electoral District. On May 21, the Commissioner received a response from Lowenfield who said “that he requires the consent of the Commission to release the requested information.” However, the statement explained that “information similar to which was requested was provided to the Commission, as a matter of course, after every past election.” In conclusion, the three concerned Commissioners said they find it amiss that the Chairman did not convene a meeting since, especially in light of the many outstanding issues regarding the conduct and outcome of the General and Regional Elections 2015.
.
Says it all. All the crap about election rigging. Reform or DIE!!!