Gecom Commissioner Vincent Alexander in a reply to my recent letter pointing out that the withdrawal of the application to the courts to have the application filed, on CEO Lowenfield’s behalf, to strike out the Ganga Persaud Elections Petition, would have been a better course of action by Gecom so as to allow for a full hearing and determination in the courts, suggests a “rethink” of my “conflict of interest” in the matter as a Gecom Commissioner.
Mr Alexander’s response has, in the main, been predictable in his patently obvious attempts to distract the public’s focus from the pivotal issues raised by the motion at Gecom.
I wish to point out that at no time during the formal tabling and debate on the motion, inclusive of a week’s “cogitation” by Chairman Surujbally, was the question of the arising of a conflict of interest noted or discussed. Least of all by Commissioner Alexander!
It should be of some interest as to why Mr Alexander is now raising this issue, post facto, when he had the fullest opportunity to enter it into the debate if he considered it material and fatal at the time.
Surely, it could not have been that Mr Alexander was assuredly and supremely confident in an expectation of the direction of Chairman Surujbally’s casting vote in the obvious presence of a division at the meetings? One can only conclude that any issue of conflict was not considered material or relevant then, and it remains so now.
However, Editor, the issues raised by Mr Alexander are moot when one considers the two larger and overarching grave matters implicit in the discussions of the failed Benn motion, to which Mr Alexander ascribes an “ulterior” motive. I repeat these for emphasis.
Firstly, do the electorate, stakeholders, and the public at large have any right to the fullest, or any elucidation and determination by a court process of the Ganga Persaud Elections Petition?
And, secondly, would it not be of immense benefit to Gecom, and for our evolving electoral democracy, if a full, and dispassionate court review helps to significantly improve public perceptions of its systems, conduct and practices with respect to its mandate?
If I have any “ulterior motive” revolving on these two issues, I hope Mr Alexander states them publicly as enquiring minds ought to know what he avows he knows. I, however, will not dare, at this time, to ascribe to Mr Alexander any “ulterior motive” but simply note his rush to deflect an understanding of the motion and strident defence of an attempt to prevent a full hearing of the Elections Petition.
In closing, it is not my interest to engage in ‘last lick’ in the media, but await the determination of the matter in the courts and, especially, in the court of informed public opinion.