UNACCEPTABLE!
September 6, 2014, By chris, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News
Mr. Arthur Chung was the first President of the Republic of Guyana.
He died in 2008. His name should not have been on the Preliminary List of Electors for 2014; in fact it should not have even been on the Final Voters’ List for 2011.
He is not alone in this regard. The PPPC has found a few thousand persons who are deceased and whose names should therefore not have appeared on the Preliminary List of Electors (PLE).
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) should not be flippant about this issue by contending that there are legal requirements and procedures which have to be fulfilled in having someone’s name removed from the List of Electors.
GECOM should also not try to pass the buck by contending that the reason why the names of the deceased were not removed is because the General Registrar’s Office (GRO) has not submitted its monthly lists of deaths to the Commission. This is a totally unacceptable explanation. It is disgraceful that the Commission would have the nerve to come before the Guyanese people and offer such an explanation.
While GECOM may be legally constrained from removing the name of a dead person from the Preliminary List of Electors without first having an official notification from the General Registrar Office, this cannot be used as justification for publishing a PLE that is riddled with the dead and who knows what else. No one is asking GECOM to remove the names of Arthur Chung, Brindley Benn or Sheila Holder arbitrarily from the PLE.
But why were feverish attempts not being made to ensure that the relevant information from the GRO was received, and adjustments made to the List of Electors. It is one thing to blame the GRO for not submitting a monthly list of persons who have died. It is quite another thing for the Commission knowing that it has not received these lists to still go ahead and produce a PLE. This is totally unacceptable and reeks of irresponsibility.
GECOM ought to know the problems that can result in Guyana from having the names of a large number of dead persons on the PLE.
It knows the confusion that this can cause during elections. It must appreciate that despite the systems in place to guard against electoral fraud – persons have been known to rise from the dead and to vote. In fact, even non-existent persons have voted in Guyana.
GECOM ought to know by now that any problems with the Final Voters’ List which is extracted from the PLE can cast grave suspicions over the electoral process. And these problems can lead to charges of electoral fraud and bring into disrepute the very integrity of any election held.
GECOM ought to know what can result. It is not unaware of the fact that supporters of the opposition have taken to the streets, often violently, protesting electoral processes even though they fully knew that they lost free and fair elections. GECOM should therefore leave no stone unturned to ensure that the opposition parties do not have a basis to instigate mayhem in this country.
It should get its PLE in order by having the names of the dead removed, and removed forthwith. It should also be aware that there are thousands of persons who are no longer resident in the division in which they were originally registered. It should ensure that it extends the claims and objections period, and that a special attempt be made to have as many of these persons effect a change in their division. It should do these things to ensure that electors are placed in their rightful divisions so that there are no problems on Election Day with persons turning up to vote in one division, only to be told that their names are on a list in another polling division.
This will be a recipe for riots in Guyana and become a basis for the disgruntled to go outside the homes of GECOM officials and sing hymns.
GECOM, of course, is still to address the issue of the votes of the seventeen polling stations in Region 3 whose results were allegedly left out of the official count. Of course, the media in Guyana is not asking GECOM questions about this fact, and therefore, GECOM may not feel that it is obligated to offer a comment, even though the charge came not from some outlier but from a GECOM Commissioner.
Source -- http://www.kaieteurnewsonline..../09/06/unacceptable/
