The Chair of GECOM has spoken. Justice Claudette Singh has written President David Granger to say that the commission would be ready “to deliver credible elections by the end of February 2020.” It is now for the Head of State, notorious for his capacity for procrastination where constitutional matters are concerned, to name a specific election date. On this occasion, however, he will possibly act with a greater measure of dispatch than that to which he is normally accustomed.
What exactly is intended by the phrase “end of February” is not altogether clear. Under normal circumstances, this would not matter, but these are not normal circumstances. Did Justice Singh mean the last day of February, or the rather more imprecise concept of the last few days or final week of February perhaps? If the former, barring February 29th specifically, we would be looking at a date in March; and if the latter, President Granger might proffer the excuse that owing to the intervention of Mashramani, he had decided to fix a date in March in any case.
If that is so, then the poll would be held at the point he had been aiming for anyway, assuming the time-line proposed by government-nominated commissioner Charles Corbin at a GECOM meeting is an indication of presidential intent. Certainly, if that is the trajectory the president opts to follow, it would be poorly received by large sectors of the society, not least the opposition, for very good reason.
For his part, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, in a statesmanlike move, appeared to accept the GECOM Chair’s announcement, although at an earlier stage, he had been adamant that elections should be held within the constitutionally stipulated three-month period which ended on September 18th. Subsequently, his party’s position was that the poll should take place in 2019, more especially after Justice Singh told both parliamentary parties that the commission was working towards a date long before the end of the year.
While describing his party as “extremely disappointed” by the GECOM decision, Mr Jagdeo said they were “patient,” and considered that the additional time afforded would make it possible for more international observers to be present and more local observers to be accredited. In addition, he was reported as saying they would use the extra months to inform Guyanese about the “transgressions” of the government. He did, however, express the hope that the election would really be held in February, and not later.
His ‘disappointment’ notwithstanding, the opposition leader indicated that his party still had faith in GECOM Chair Claudette Singh. He referred to her “fairness and impartiality” but described the secretariat on which she had to rely as “at best unreliable.” He went on to say: “They are deliberately …raising concerns that are extraneous and feeding her extended timelines, and she then has a commission where three of the members don’t want any timeline. Their entire purpose so far has been to frustrate the process…”
As it is, the GECOM Chair did not provide any of the timelines on which she based her decision, which considering she settled on a date well outside what the Constitution requires, does not redound to her credit. It might be noted, in addition, that she did not operate with any expedition herself following her appointment on July 29th, leaving everything in the same vacuum past September 18th, save for an ill-advised instruction that the data from the house-to-house registration exercise be integrated into the existing National Register of Registrants. This inevitably would have been a source of significant delays in terms of the readiness of the commission in its own right.
That there is indignation in some quarters about GECOM being unable to deliver an election before the end of February is not without justification. The Guyana Bar Council, for example, which directed its ire against the Government of Guyana for not holding elections as is constitutionally required, said in a statement: “… by failing to abide by the clear and unambiguous terms of the Constitution, the Government of Guyana has abdicated its responsibility, violated the Constitution, is operating outside of the rule of law and in breach of internationally recognised standards of democracy.” Where GECOM was concerned, the council said the commission had a duty to be ready to administer and supervise elections within the three-month period stipulated in the Constitution in order to be in compliance.
This is absolutely true, but for all of that, we are where we are. The country is already in a constitutional wasteland, and an election date before the end of the year, while infinitely more acceptable than February next year, will not alter that fact. In any case, there would be no obvious easy route to securing an earlier date than February at this point, since the government would resist it and it would put the credibility of any election next year – which unquestionably the coalition would still insist on holding − in doubt.
From the beginning, one of the main causes of the delays has been the Head of State’s untenable contention that he had to wait for GECOM to tell him when it was ready to hold an election, not that under the Constitution he was required to name the date and that the commission should be in readiness to meet the constitutional deadline.
Presumably, the Leader of the Opposition recognised that it was not possible to turn the clock back, and that the GECOM Chair’s decision was, in any event, a necessary step to moving the political process forward and arriving at a legitimate outcome.
The illegalities of the past cannot now be expunged; what we want is to move into legal terrain. As implied earlier, opposing a date at the end of February at this stage might have the paradoxical consequence of pushing the election even further into next year. As such, Mr Jagdeo and his party give the appearance of following the lesser of two unpalatable options, and consequently have acknowledged Justice Singh’s pronouncement as a fait accompli.
Of course, the diplomatic community has had its say on the latest communication regarding a February poll. The US, the EU and the UK last week called on President Granger to set an election date immediately in light of the advice he had received from GECOM. They also expressed their regret that the government was in breach of the Constitution by surpassing September 18th, following its failure to adhere to the decisions of the CCJ. This, they said, would hinder their ability to support Guyana’s development needs.
Cynical observers wondered whether this statement would have any effect on the government, since there were no urgent projects being funded by the three currently. Furthermore, as we reported on Friday, the critics were of the view that this was hardly a very appropriate time for a message of this kind; June 18th would have been a far more effective date. Perhaps, however, so the argument runs, the approach of the US and UK in particular to the Guyana situation is now dominated by their concerns with regard to oil production plans for ExxonMobil and Tullow.
