Skip to main content

Voter suppression

On October 29, nearly a week ago, it was reported to the media by several commissioners of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) following their weekly meeting that a decision had been taken by the Chair, Justice (Rtd) Claudette Singh that the names of over 25,000 could be excluded from the Official List of Electors (OLE) for the March 2020 General and Regional Elections if those persons made no effort to uplift National Identification Cards which have not been collected going all the way back to 2008.

 

It was further reported by the commissioners that the Chair had arrived at this position after reviewing two proposals which had been put forward by the government-appointed commissioners. The GECOM Chair has unfortunately not made herself available to the media to answer questions or provide clarifications but there has been no attempt by the Commission thus far to refute what has widely been reported in the media as it relates to these 25,000 names.

So while there has been no official word from GECOM of this intention, it must be stated from the outset that the removal of names of persons from the voters list on the grounds that they had not uplifted ID cards would be illegal and unconstitutional. It would also make a mockery of Justice Singh’s own decision in the Esther Perreira elections petition case where she ruled that the requirement for a special voter ID card was an attachment on the constitutional right to vote.

Justice Singh apparently read a ‘ruling’ to the commissioners to support her decision for the removal of the names if within 21 days of the  publication of the list of the names the persons in question do not turn up to collect them. While publishing the names of the persons could be considered a reasonable approach, the only acceptable course of action if the cards were not collected would be for GECOM to agree that they be destroyed so as not to be employed for any nefarious purposes. That’s it. Under no circumstances can the names be struck from the list as that would be patently illegal and would open up GECOM and Justice Singh to legal action.

By suggesting that these uncollected cards connote some type of mischief, the proponents of the deletion of the names are themselves undermining trust and confidence in the ID generation process and its interface with the registration system. Is it conceivable that over 25,000 ID cards could have been generated in any other manner but via legitimate and well-scrutinised applications? How could the non-collection of these cards corrupt the electoral system when there are so many safeguards at the various levels including at the place of poll?

What will be evident here again – as in other instances – is a growing attempt at voter suppression in the main by the government-appointed commissioners of GECOM and, in this case, apparently chaperoned by the Chair. The real intention of the misguided house-to-house registration exercise championed by the government, the government-appointed commissioners and the former Chairman of GECOM, Justice (Rtd) Patterson was to exclude the names from the list of electors of those who were not present  at their residences at the point of registration. This move was derailed by the recent ruling of Chief Justice George that residency was not a requirement for the exercising of franchise.

This ruling, however, did not prevent a yet unexplained press release from GECOM advising that following the publication of the Preliminary Voters List that  persons listed had to appear in person at some registration office to confirm their identity otherwise their names would not appear on the OLE. This advice was later withdrawn but its mastermind and motivations have still not been made known to the public.

All of these missteps and attempts to contravene the constitutional right to vote will raise serious questions about whether GECOM is not engaged in voter suppression. Whereas it is arguably GECOM’s role to try to convince as many persons as possible to register and to cast their ballots on polling day, this latest folly in the name of Justice Singh seeks to strike off from the final voters list the names of persons who most likely remain eminently eligible to cast their ballots on March 2, 2020.

 

At tomorrow’s meeting of GECOM, Justice Singh must take steps to end this infringement on the rights of those voters – in the list of over 25,000 – who are eligible to exercise their franchise on polling day.

 

AFC sets Nov 10 to conclude negotiations with APNU

 

The Alliance For Change (AFC) has set a November 10 deadline to conclude negotiations with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) for a revised political agreement that is likely to include more government jobs, AFC Chief Negotiator David Patterson said Saturday.

“There are three items of which two may have to go to the high-level committee but there are two or three items which we are quite close. There are three items we haven’t actually signed off on. There are a lot of words and refining and so on to ensure the Accord doesn’t collide with the constitution so the lawyers are looking at a little part,” Mr. Patterson said.

Speaking with News-Talk Radio Guyana 103.1 FM/Demerara Waves Online News, Mr. Patterson said the AFC did not merely want provisions for party members to get diplomatic posts in the 2015 pact styled the Cummingsburg Accord. “All of those are included and we are to reach a common agreement on that…We have looked at government as a whole, Wherever government representation is – here, local, and whatever it is – we have looked at government as a whole in this revised accord,” he said,

Other AFC sources have said the party was also interested in getting greater representation at local government councils as there had been concerns at the 2016 and 2018 local government elections that the Accord contained no such provision resulting in the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR)-controlled APNU dominating many of the councils.

However, Mr. Patterson virtually ruled out the AFC demanding more local government seats in the town and neighbourhood councils. “We did have an initial discussion on if we should include local government elections but we felt that how the local government elections are so unique. It’s eighty-one different elections and we need to be specific that we can’t have an overarching declaration on how we are going to go at it but we both agreed that we’ll address that immediately after we have assumed office in March, 2020,” he said,

Asked whether the issue of the prime ministerial candidacy was now settled based on talks with President David Granger earlier this week and the AFC’s National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, the AFC Chief Negotiator reiterated that progress has been made.

Saturday’s NEC meeting, Mr Patterson said, also agreed on the campaign plan, and appointed him as AFC Campaign Director.

AFC Executive Member, Cathy Hughes told her party’s 14th anniversary celebration outside its Railway Embankment, Kitty, headquarters that ever since the party was born, “everybody has been trying to stop us growing” but “you cannot stop the AFC at all”. In apparent reference to APNU’s seeming reluctance to accept AFC Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan as Mr. Granger’s running mate, she remarked that “you know we had a lot of people who want to fight him down, but he is our man, right?”

Boasting that her party does not write letters to the newspapers or shout, she said the AFC sits quietly. “Come March 2, we are going to go in and we are gonna do the job like we did it before and when they want to tell you all the negatives about us”, she noted.

“We have power, we have strength and we are going to make sure that we exercise it. We got to go forward as a team. We got to work together and now is the time to make sure that in every single area that you are living in, we start to walk the ground again. I know many of you have been doing it but we have to get up to the mass action.” she said.

K

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×