Justice Claudette Singh’s justifications for rejecting our ten motions, put by PPP Commissioners at the last GECOM meeting, are simply incredulous. That she chose to speak only to the Chronicle Newspapers on this matter, by itself, speaks volume.
Any sensible person, familiar with our proposals in those motions, would clearly see that having regard to the crude fraud perpetrated by Clairmont Mingo in relation to the Region 4 results, that they were all intended to bring greater transparency, oversight, public scrutiny, greater dispatch – aggregating to add significant credibility and integrity to the recount process.
The Chairperson’s reliance on section 90 of the Representation of the People Act to reject our proposal to live stream the process is as convenient as it is preposterous. The Chairperson rejected our motion that the recount be done in accordance with sections 84, 86, 87 and 89 of the very Act but conveniently chooses to rely upon section 90.
In any event, the recount is being done under section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act and Article 162(1)(b) of the Constitution, both of which empower GECOM to issue such instructions and take such actions as appear to it necessary and expedient to ensure impartiality and fairness. Would the live streaming of the process and the other proposals contained in the nine other motions not enhance impartiality and fairness? In fact, in rejecting those proposals the Chairperson herself is tainting the process with partiality and unfairness.
Significantly, the Chairperson herself in her written submissions to the Court highlighted the importance of GECOM and the electoral process enjoying public confidence so that the election results would be accepted by all. It is no secret that the public confidence in GECOM and its staff is at an all time low.
The truth is that a majority of the electorate does not trust GECOM. After what transpired, there is sound basis for this mistrust. The live streaming of the process would contribute tremendously to boosting public confidence in the process.
After what Mingo did and the Chairperson’s repeated public commitment to act fairly and transparently, how can she reject a proposal to allow the Audit Office of Guyana or a private audit firm to aid and scrutinize the exercise, but rather choose to support highly toxic persons from the Secretariat whose conduct have been condemned by all the observer teams, to conduct the recount exercise. It is difficult to defend an argument that she is not part of the same design.
The Chairperson’s justification for rejecting our proposal for the Commissioners to be given the SOPs is equally baffling. This is not Lowenfield’s private property. The Commissioners have a legal entitlement to them. Neither are they secret. They were posted at polling places across the country. As Chairperson of the Commission, is Justice Singh not even curious to see what those SOPs say in relation to the fabricated spreadsheet which Mingo used as the basis of his tabulation? This must be boggling to the rational mind.
The same arguments apply, a fortiori to her refusal to have Region 4 ballots counted off early rather than stretch it until the end of the exercise.
It is imperative therefore that the Chairperson reconsiders her position lest the recount process evoke greater controversy than it was intended to resolve.
