The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) released a statement yesterday accusing the Alliance For Change (AFC) of being dishonest as it regards the 2006 Region Ten parliamentary seat which is currently the subject of a court challenge mounted by the opposition party.
The party said it had cause to correct the AFC allegation in the past, but that it would “set the record straight” now. The PPP stated that after the votes were counted the initial declaration from the Acting Returning Officer on the evening of August 28, 2006 showed that the AFC received 3,166 votes and the PPP/C had 3,189. It said all counting agents of political parties signed the declaration that evening and noted that the AFC made no objections and that the party did not call for a recount as is provided by law.
The PPP said the Chief Election Officer made a declaration based on the count at the place of poll, certified by the agents of the political parties and GECOM officials on August 31, 2006. The statement said the Acting Returning Officer was ill and had to be hospitalized, but that he resumed his duties and subsequently made anther declaration which showed that the AFC got 3,188 votes and the PPP/C had 3,273 votes.
The statement continued that the Chief Election Officer wrote all the parties that contested the elections during the first week of September informing them of the results, and that he then requested the parties to extract the names from their respective lists for Parliament and the Regional Democratic Councils. On October 20, 2006 the CEO published the official results of the persons elected, the statement said, and that the results were repeated and later sent to the parties in September 2006.
According to the PPP, an undated document with the words, ‘Returning Officer’ defaced started to circulate in November 2006 and claimed that the AFC received 3,314 votes compared to the PPP/C 3,282 votes at the 2006 elections.
The PPP said that it is on this basis the AFC started to make a claim for the seat, adding that the opposition party said nothing at the time the votes were counted. It reiterated that the AFC made no call for a recount and that the party’s counting agent signed off on the statement of poll.
“It is therefore downright dishonest for the AFC to be making statements that they were wrongfully denied the seat… The PPP is also appalled that (Raphael) Trotman, a lawyer by profession, would have been making such statements even though the matter is being heard in the courts in a petition filed on behalf of the AFC”, the statement said.
Further, the PPP said the intention of the AFC seems to be to compromise or influence the outcome of court proceedings.
AFC member Walter Melville filed the petition on behalf of the party concerning the Region Ten parliamentary seat shortly after the 2006 general elections.
The AFC has said publicly there had been no determination of the Region Ten seat following the 2006 elections though it possessed certified statements of poll showing that the party had won the seat. Party leader Trotman said the party had won more votes than the People’s Progressive Party/Civic in Region Ten. He added that the seat – now occupied by Prime Minister Sam Hinds – should have therefore been assigned to the AFC.
Trotman noted that the Guyana Elections Commis-sion (GECOM) made an announcement that the PPP/C had won the seat following the elections and that Hinds was named as the elected PPP/C representative for the seat. He said too that Chairman of GECOM, Dr Steve Surujbally then acknowledged that there was a miscalculation. The AFC filed its election petition soon after when it was made known that GECOM could not legally change any announcements that it had publicized, and that the result could only be ordered changed in a court of law.
Recently, the party again raised the issue of the seat at a press conference.PPP gives its side of Region 10 seat row
The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) released a statement yesterday accusing the Alliance For Change (AFC) of being dishonest as it regards the 2006 Region Ten parliamentary seat which is currently the subject of a court challenge mounted by the opposition party.
The party said it had cause to correct the AFC allegation in the past, but that it would “set the record straight” now. The PPP stated that after the votes were counted the initial declaration from the Acting Returning Officer on the evening of August 28, 2006 showed that the AFC received 3,166 votes and the PPP/C had 3,189. It said all counting agents of political parties signed the declaration that evening and noted that the AFC made no objections and that the party did not call for a recount as is provided by law.
The PPP said the Chief Election Officer made a declaration based on the count at the place of poll, certified by the agents of the political parties and GECOM officials on August 31, 2006. The statement said the Acting Returning Officer was ill and had to be hospitalized, but that he resumed his duties and subsequently made anther declaration which showed that the AFC got 3,188 votes and the PPP/C had 3,273 votes.
The statement continued that the Chief Election Officer wrote all the parties that contested the elections during the first week of September informing them of the results, and that he then requested the parties to extract the names from their respective lists for Parliament and the Regional Democratic Councils. On October 20, 2006 the CEO published the official results of the persons elected, the statement said, and that the results were repeated and later sent to the parties in September 2006.
According to the PPP, an undated document with the words, ‘Returning Officer’ defaced started to circulate in November 2006 and claimed that the AFC received 3,314 votes compared to the PPP/C 3,282 votes at the 2006 elections.
The PPP said that it is on this basis the AFC started to make a claim for the seat, adding that the opposition party said nothing at the time the votes were counted. It reiterated that the AFC made no call for a recount and that the party’s counting agent signed off on the statement of poll.
“It is therefore downright dishonest for the AFC to be making statements that they were wrongfully denied the seat… The PPP is also appalled that (Raphael) Trotman, a lawyer by profession, would have been making such statements even though the matter is being heard in the courts in a petition filed on behalf of the AFC”, the statement said.
Further, the PPP said the intention of the AFC seems to be to compromise or influence the outcome of court proceedings.
AFC member Walter Melville filed the petition on behalf of the party concerning the Region Ten parliamentary seat shortly after the 2006 general elections.
The AFC has said publicly there had been no determination of the Region Ten seat following the 2006 elections though it possessed certified statements of poll showing that the party had won the seat. Party leader Trotman said the party had won more votes than the People’s Progressive Party/Civic in Region Ten. He added that the seat – now occupied by Prime Minister Sam Hinds – should have therefore been assigned to the AFC.
Trotman noted that the Guyana Elections Commis-sion (GECOM) made an announcement that the PPP/C had won the seat following the elections and that Hinds was named as the elected PPP/C representative for the seat. He said too that Chairman of GECOM, Dr Steve Surujbally then acknowledged that there was a miscalculation. The AFC filed its election petition soon after when it was made known that GECOM could not legally change any announcements that it had publicized, and that the result could only be ordered changed in a court of law.
Recently, the party again raised the issue of the seat at a press conference.
