Dear Editor,
I took time off to read Commissioner Benn’s attempted response to my letter about the concocted, conflictual and hypocritical behaviour of Commissioners Benn, Shadick and Gunraj in their attempt to determine how Gecom should respond to Ganga Persaud’s Petition. In effect it is their Petition, since Benn and Shadick were candidates of the PPP/C at the election which is the subject of the Petition, and Ganga Persaud was the PPP/C agent for that election.
Mr Benn accuses me of “fulminations”. I would readily admit to fulminating since that is the kind of action that is required to ensure that his concoction, conflictual behaviour and hypocrisy do not gain root and obfuscate his ulterior motive.
I previously proved that Mr Lowenfield needed no permission to determine the nature of his response to the Petition, once he had been given permission to respond. The response has always been determined by the advice of the attorney retained to handle the case. Mr Benn, however, continues to argue that, “The intervention on Mr Lowenfield’s behalf at the courts remains unauthorized…” However, in his concoction he goes on to say: “In this matter, Dr Surujbally’s action of casting his deciding vote against the motion to have CEO Lowenfield withdraw the application … to quash the elections petition is most regrettable.” Isn’t that evidence that even if Mr Lowenfield might not have had permission in the first instance that the Commission, by a majority vote , has since given a no objection to his action. The fact of the matter is, as was stated before, such permission was never required in the past. Gecom records can attest to my submission.
Mr Benn seeks to relieve himself of his conflict of interest by his contention that, “it is self evident that the appointments of Benn and Ms Shadick as Gecom commissioners post-dated their presence on a list of candidates,” as if to say that the list has no life or meaning after the election. They are still eligible to be extracted to fill vacancies that might arise. Their ascension to office did not result in their removal from the list, though if extracted they will be required to demit office as commissioners. Mr Benn may well want to rethink his unfounded disposition to the conflict of interest that he and his colleague find themselves in after reading the following: “The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interest of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties”(West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2). It only takes the potential for the conflict of interest to be determined.
Mr Benn’ s conflict is manifested in his quest to have Gecom forego, according to him, “in the interest of justice and public scrutiny” the legal avenues available to it. But at the same time he seeks to relieve the Petitioner of the need to prove to the court that his matter is worthy of a hearing.
My reference to the 2006 debacle when the AFC was fraudulently denied its Linden seat was intended to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Benns, who remained deafeningly silent at that time in the face of illegality and injustice but now seek to jettison legitimate legal action in the interest of justice, according to Mr Benn.
The Petitioner has approached the court contesting the results on a number of grounds. Mr Lowenfield has exercised his legal prerogative to challenge the sufficiency of those grounds. Let’s not be ambushed by sadness, guns and bends.
I would rather be Gecom’s spokesman than engage in an enterprise of concoction, conflict of interest and hypocrisy.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
Gecom Commissioner
