Dear Editor,
The response of Mr Nagamootoo, Chairman of the National Coronavirus Task Force, to the GECOM Chairperson’s request for guidance on a number of matters relating to the recount of votes is not surprising. I agree with the Stabroek News editorial of April 20, 2020 that “The Chair’s diffidence about her authority has now given Mr Nagamootoo the means to further devalue the process and he has delivered”.
I believe that the Chairperson, due to incompetence or some other reason, clearly blundered in her request, instead of, as stated in the editorial, advising “Mr Nagamootoo that GECOM was desirous of concluding this recount process as quickly as possible given the intolerable delay and wanted to do counting 24/7 and that the necessary arrangement should be put in place for this”. Had she done that, she would have placed the onus on Mr Nagamootoo to facilitate the process, making it difficult for him to place roadblocks, and holding him accountable.
Considering the urgency and necessity to get a fully functional and legitimate government in place through a fair and transparent recount, it is certainly possible to put procedures in place to deal with the Coronavirus situation and proceed with the recount without delay. Unfortunately, the apparent roadblocks seem more designed to drag the process out and prevent CARICOM and other overseas observers from attending. It is now difficult to anticipate a fair and transparent process with a relatively quick end.
The presence of the foreign diplomats, international observers and the furore created by the opposition parties during the earlier tabulation prevented the declaration of a winner of the elections based on fiddled numbers. I believe live streaming of the recount should not be accepted by the opposition parties as a substitute for the presence of CARICOM and/or other international observers. Without these observers, opposition scrutineers could easily be turfed out of the counting venue for raising objections, resulting in similar malfeasance as earlier. This time around, once a winner is declared, the only recourse then will be the courts where an election petition is likely to languish for years. It must be noted that the petition from the 2015 elections has still not been heard to date.
One further point worth noting is the need for a check of each workstation and the network, if linked, by an IT expert prior to data input for tabulation whenever the recount commences. It is critical to ensure there is no lurking phantom programme or data file which could compromise the integrity of the inputted data. And, as before, keen watch should be kept to ensure accurate data input.
While I offer my thoughts on the recount, I note in the Opinion column of the above edition of the paper a letter by lawyer Melinda Janki under the caption `The court can supervise verification and tabulation of Region Four SOPs in the presence of independent observers’. Ms Janki has put forward an interesting legal position against a recount which I believe should be given serious consideration also.
Hopefully, one way or the other, GECOM can conclude this process in a fair and transparent manner so that a legitimate president can be sworn in to take the reins of government sooner than later. The whole world is watching and Guyanese are counting on the Chairperson to end this embarrassment.
Yours faithfully,
Harry Hergash
