Ralph Ramkarran

As the week ended, a clear strategy by APNU+AFC appears to be emerging.

The President and Leader of the Opposition agreed on a recount.

Dear Distinguished Caricom Observer Team: Messrs Cynthia Barrow-Giles, John Jarvis and Sylvester King.

The jury is still out on whether the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) will deliver credible election results, notwithstanding the widespread demands of the international community and a broad cross-section of Guyanese.

Interest in “Ian on Sunday” of April 12, (“Everything is interesting,”) attracted not only my attention but that of SN’s editorial writer last Friday, days after I had completed this effort.

The daring absurdity of the 156-day plan for the recounting of the ballots of the March 2 elections begs the question of what exactly goes on at meetings of the Elections Commission.

It will not be until 11 am today that the Guyanese public will know whether a recount by GECOM is going to take place soon, or at all.

The headline is not an original formulation. It is partially borrowed from the late Miles Fitzpatrick, then a columnist in the Stabroek News.

Just as the Elections Commission (“the Commission”) was getting its act together, gingerly tiptoeing its way to a decision to recount the votes cast in the general and regional elections held on March 2, Ulita Moore, a candidate for the APNU+AFC in the regional elections, caused to be filed a case in court seeking a variety of declarations and orders against the Commission.

When I first encountered the issue of rigging of elections in Guyana, I was a student activist.

Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act is quite clear.

Some foreign observers are unaware of Guyana’s electoral history. One wonders whether such observers are qualified to observe Guyana’s elections.

During the 2011 election campaign, the PPP/C held the view that it would obtain the support of up to 60% of the electorate.

The three political parties that invoked section 22 of the Representation of the People Act signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Friday setting out the principles on which both their pre- and post-election cooperation will be based.

It is sad to say that the Global Witness report, “Signed Away,” analysing EEPGL’s (the ExxonMobil controlled Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited) agreement with Guyana and the damning circumstances leading up to its signing, will not influence the vote of more than a handful of people, if so many, at the elections on March 2.

By 2012 African journalists were questioning the origins of Isabel dos Santos’s wealth.

The history of tampering with ballot boxes commenced in 1968 and ended in 1985.

A number of new parties have created electoral history in Guyana by, for the first time, joining together to form a combination of lists whose votes shall be combined to determine the number of seats they will collectively obtain.

On Friday last, 13 political parties submitted lists of candidates to the Elections Commission in a self-nomination process to contest the general and regional elections on March 2.

The financing of political campaigns without accountability can lead to corruption and it often does.