Dear Editor,
The Observation Report being used in the National Recount was intended to record any findings/ observations relating to the contents of each ballot box. As you already know, this Observation Report is read out in the tabulation room and live streamed to the public. The matter of concern is that the Observation Report has morphed into a document – sometimes consisting of several pages – where one party (APNU+AFC) gets free rein to have its observations and objections recorded in detail. The APNU+AFC agents are permitted to have recorded, the serial numbers they object to, on the grounds of migrated persons, and persons who are deceased, and they insist that every other thing – no matter how insignificant or irrelevant – be noted as well. In almost every box, APNU+AFC agents call out dozens of serial numbers, taking up valuable time, and in most cases, only a handful are ticked on the Official List of Electors (OLE) as voted. The most recent directions from Gecom, in relation to these allegations, is that, the Supervisor must only record on the Observation Report the serial numbers that are ticked, and not the total amount that was queried. It therefore means, that if APNU calls out 100 serial numbers and 5 are ticked, only the 5 ticked numbers are written in the report.
On the other hand, the other parties, including the PPP/C, are only allowed to say they object to the allegations, and not to give reasons for their objections. Gecom has gone as far as to set out the language a Supervisor must use, in a document called ‘Basket of Issues’. The Supervisor, when recording an objection to an allegation must note “Party XYZ objected to this allegation”. It therefore means, that the Observation Report will not provide an accurate account of what is taking place at these workstations. For example, in ballot box number 3329, the APNU+AFC agent objected to serial number 39 on the ground that the person is deceased. After checking the list, the Gecom staff confirmed that the elector listed at that serial number did not vote on March 2, 2020. This allegation was debunked right there at the workstation, but will not be read out to the public on the live stream. If the Observation Report accurately reflected the nonsensical and preposterous allegations being made by APNU+AFC, the public would understand why this process is so slothful, and more importantly, they would understand that this is nothing more than a fishing expedition to try to discredit the elections.
Editor, I have been present at my workstation since this recount began, and not an iota of evidence has ever been produced or presented to support their claims. The use of the Observation Report to further the sinister agenda of the APNU+AFC, and prejudice all of the other parties, is inherently unfair. The Observation Report is simply being used as a propaganda tool.
Yours faithfully,
Susan Rodrigues
