Dear Editor,
That the total recount of all the ballots as proposed by Mr Granger is a ploy to delay or to prevent the true results of the March 2nd elections from becoming known is clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. The ludicrous proposal by Mr Lowenfield of 156 days for this exercise and the daily absurdities in defence of a prolonged counting period emanating from the APNU+AFC Commissioners and the GECOM Chairperson all attest to this fact.
Be that as it may, there is however a more ominous aspect to this proposed national recount that bears some amount of scrutiny.
From 1992 onwards Guyana adopted counting at the place of poll as a means of introducing some degree of transparency into its electoral process.
All elections since then have met at least the minimum requirements for free and fair certification by the international election observer bodies.
The Statements of Poll duly witnessed and signed by all relevant parties contain the official record of the election result for each polling station and their use as the means of aggregating these results is fundamental to the execution of an election that is free, fair, transparent and credible.
Their use in the tabulation of the results for each electoral district is mandated by law in Article 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
The compilation of this document is witnessed at each polling station by election officials as well as representatives from the various political parties contesting the election and other observers.
The Statements of Poll duly witnessed and signed are submitted to the returning officer for each electoral district who compiles the
overall result for the district using the figures contained in these documents.
Each party representative is provided with a copy of the Statement of Poll and as such each party is in a position to make their own tabulations and to flag any discrepancies for remedial action.
Another copy is also submitted to the Chief Election Officer.
On the basis of the figures obtained from the returning officers from the ten electoral districts GECOM can then make a final declaration as to the winner of the elections.
This entire process is straightforward and by virtue of its simplicity should, under normal circumstances, render the electoral process tamperproof after the close of polls.
These Statements of Poll and indeed the entire electoral process are paid for by the Guyanese taxpayer so that GECOM can deliver a fair and credible election result to the Guyanese people.
These Statements of Poll are not the property of any one official at GECOM, to be withheld at their whim and fancy because they do not like the results contained therein.
By virtue of the fact that the law requires a Statement of Poll to be posted outside each polling station, this document is in the public domain and by right becomes the property of all the Guyanese people.
It is therefore a complete travesty of justice for officials of GECOM to use the judicial system, at taxpayers’ expense, to defend their perceived legal right to suppress these documents.
Further, the facilitation of a national recount, at the taxpayers’ expense because of the actions of some corrupt and incompetent GECOM officials, to arrive at an election result already contained in the Statements of Poll and most of which was already declared by GECOM, is a gross misuse of public funds given the amount of money already expended by GECOM on an election that was supposed to deliver a credible result.
This is especially so now that we are faced with possible devastation, economic and otherwise, of a magnitude yet unknown, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, in the absence of any credible reason as to why the Region Four Statements of Poll can no longer be used, the Chairperson of GECOM has a moral obligation to demand these documents from Mr. Lowenfield and to use them as a basis for declaring the election result.
Dispensing with the use of the Statements of Poll in the electoral process is a retrograde step that sets a precedent for future elections, rendering the system of counting at the place of poll redundant and will no doubt see the country reverting to a system of centralized counting of the ballots and another nail in the coffin of democracy.
Such shall be the legacy of Ms Claudette Singh whose pusillanimity in the execution of her duties as Chairperson of GECOM thus far leaves a lot to be desired.
Yours faithfully,
Marcel Gaskin
