While we still don’t know when exactly the recount of Guyana’s ten electoral districts will start, the exhausted citizenry has now been told by Gecom that the operation could take at least 25 days, if not longer. And this in circumstances where the country’s electorate numbers around 450,000. The original count in all the regions, bar District Four, took under two days, so why, asks a populace which is no stranger to simple arithmetic, is this exercise − which admittedly is a little more complicated − going to take so long, and could potentially drag on beyond the initial estimate? Had the commission detailed a cohort of primary school children to come and recount the votes, it would have been done far more quickly and, it should be said, accurately, but the adults who have charge of this process are a different story.
At its most basic level the matter of an expeditious recount relates to chronology, number of workstations and hours of work. The workstations total has been limited to ten, a figure decided on by Gecom Chair Claudette Singh and justified by her on the grounds of social distancing. Of course, even if this argument were to be accepted, these could have been increased if, as the PPP/C had proposed at an earlier stage, tents had been set up in the grounds of the Arthur Chung Convention Centre. However, that suggestion was not entertained.
The matter of the working hours in a day being limited to ten is particularly indefensible. This was decided by Justice Singh after she had had recourse to Chairman Moses Nagamootoo of the Covid-19 Task Force who had decreed that those involved in the recount would have to observe the curfew. In the first place, she should not have written him, but in the second, having mistakenly done so she should have ignored what he said. He was in no position to rule on the length of the working day for anyone under the jurisdiction of the commission, an autonomous body. As it is, all kinds of workers are exempt from the curfew, so what argument could there be for those engaged in as critical a task as the recount, whether as primary operatives or observers, not being among them?
The matter of the chronology of the recount is more complicated, which, without going into details, Commissioner Sase Gunraj has described as an “untidy process” that would lend itself to “confusion”, because “you will have at any one time several containers of ballot boxes open, several areas moving at the same time.” In addition, he said, it would not give District Four “the special attention it requires as the largest district and the district where the issues reside.”
According to Mr Gunraj by the unnecessary addition of a provision of the Representation of the People Act relating to what happens after the close of poll, the Chair has also made the tabulation process more unwieldy and lengthy than it would otherwise be.
Mr Christopher Ram, writing in a letter to this newspaper yesterday, calculated the ten stations would “count an average of 9600 votes per day over 47 count and tabulation days”.
Thereafter, the 2,389 sheets would have to be tabulated, following which Gecom would have to prepare a summary and report, and the commission would need to meet. If there were no weekends or holiday breaks, all of that would take us to the first week of July, and if there were, into August. Furthermore, he suggests that counting might not actually begin until May 11, since the Caricom team will have to be given time to come.
Even if the time-frame turns out to be not quite as dire as what that estimate gives, 25 days is still far too long. The PPP/C commissioners put forward a motion for a 14-day recount period, but that was voted down, along with one for reorganising the chronology of the count. They are also very right to point out that Gecom cannot ask Caricom officials to come here on an open-ended basis, without giving them a firm idea of how long they will be expected to stay. That is even more true in the current coronavirus circumstances.
Celerity, however, is only one part of the problem. The other is ensuring the recount process is transparent and credible. If the Gecom Chair has lent her vote more-or-less consistently to the positions adopted by the government-appointed commissioners where matters of the speed of the undertaking are concerned, her record on this second front has been no different.
Commissioner Gunraj presented ten motions to the commission, the initial one of which requested that the originals of all Statements of Poll for District Four received by the Chief Election Officer be furnished to the commissioners. The importance of this to establishing the truth of what transpired in Region Four has been recognised by any number of persons and organisations in the society. Justice Singh, however, used her casting vote to oppose this move, as she did the motion to revoke the report produced by the CEO in relation to District Four. She was reported as saying that these declarations would be held in “abeyance” until they were superseded by those from the recount process.
How can a fraudulent declaration be held in “abeyance”? Such a statement leaves her open to the inference that she does not accept that it is fraudulent, which at the very least would be unfortunate for her reputation in her current position, and for the extrapolations which will inevitably be made about how she will manage the recount process.
Perhaps it is not surprising that she opposed the Audit Office or an audit company observing the count, and this too was voted down in the customary fashion, although no reason was proffered. A request for live-streaming of the process was met with a negative response as well, although in this instance the Chair cited Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act requiring that the secrecy of the vote be maintained during the tabulation process. However, the commission did agree to have each Statement of Recount projected onto a screen, and then entered onto a spreadsheet which could be viewed by all persons present. Party representatives would be given the opportunity to check whether the tabulation for an entire district was accurate, and if satisfied sign off on it.
Since certain individuals from the Gecom Secretariat are particularly associated with what went wrong in the tabulation of District Four, it will not inspire trust in the process that the Chair was not of a mind to contemplate excluding those members of staff or any who were involved in subsequent legal proceedings from the recount.
Where Mr Clairmont Mingo was concerned, she said no returning officers would have a role in the Region Four recount, and that would include him. But this would not extend to anyone else, as in her opinion there was not enough evidence of fraudulent acts committed by them, and the CEO would need staff. One can only wonder where she has been for the last seven weeks, since all the contesting parties (except the coalition) in addition to others have raised questions about Mr Keith Lowenfield’s role in the present quagmire. And this is before we move on to others, such as Ms Roxanne Myers. Is it just that Justice Singh is deliberately closing her eyes to what is going on, or is she unduly naïve?
The result of all of this is that the commission’s decisions do not inspire confidence in relation to the recount, any more than does Justice Singh’s use of her casting vote. As things stand it is perfectly possible to envisage delays and/or muddle in the process, as well as challenges to its credibility. The whole arrangement does not seem tight enough to prevent problems in all shapes and forms, or avoid a situation in which potentially the Caricom observers could pack up and go home in exasperation. Are there those in Gecom and outside it who are hoping for such an outcome? Are there some who are still bent on fraud, even at this late stage?
If there are, then what is their final aim now? It can’t be the swearing in of Mr Granger on the basis of Mr Mingo’s declaration; at this point it must have occurred to them that sanctions would swiftly follow. And it can’t be that they are angling for a national government; that can’t happen by this route as it also should have dawned on them by now.
So is it that they are hoping to have the election cancelled and a new one held at some unforeseeable point in the future, allowing them the time to continue in power as well as rig efficiently? If so, they need to come back down to earth; sanctions are waiting no matter which way they play it. We’re back where we always were: awaiting the true result of the March 2nd election, only this time we will find ourselves in a constitutional wasteland after April 30th.
