Dear Editor,
In a recent letter to the Editor re the Walrond-Allicock matter, I focused on the need for us, as a nation, to urgently address the question of a national ethos, as a matter of importance. I pointed out the need for us to embrace mutually agreed values and elements of Good Governance. I refer to the recent statement emanating from the Private Sector Commission with respect to their perceived need to rectify ‘all that has gone wrong at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)’ and their contention that “Senior officials of GECOM, including Chief Election Officer, Keith Lowenfield, and District 4 Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, and a number of other officials assisting these officers and an Information Technology Officer, are charged before the Courts with “ misconduct in public office”. Nevertheless, as far as we know, none of these officers has been dismissed from their employment with GECOM and this speaks volumes about the Private Sector Commission and their disposition to a national ethos which embraces core values, responsible conduct, the rule-of law, honesty, transparency and fiduciary responsibility.
2020 seems to be the year of re-awakening of the Private Sector Commission. In 2006 GECOM produced a fraudulent result and a fraudulent document purporting to be the results of constituency ten/region #10 elections and the Private Sector Commission was deafeningly silent. Doodnauth Singh in 1997 excused himself from the deliberations of the Commission, proceeded to swear-in Janet Jagan, as President, unbeknownst to the Elections Commission, which was still deliberating on the draft report of the elections results. The Private Sector Commission seemed comatose during and following that occurrence. In 2011, the then Chief Election Officer presented to the Commission an erroneous result, in favour of the PPP/C, about which the Private Sector Commission was aware; privately acknowledged; but remained patently silent. In 2015 the Private Sector Commission turned a blind eye on the accusation of an attempt to introduce false statements of poll during the summation of the districts` results. However, in 2020 the Private Sector Commission not only identifies with the accusation of wrongdoing by GECOM officials, but finds them guilty without a trial and calls for their dismissal, even as the Courts grapple with the ongoing saga of the Prosecutors who, nine months after the offences were supposedly committed, and five months after the declaration of the results, have not yet addressed the courts on the substantive charges. The Private Sector Commission`s posture is clear disregard for ‘the presumption of innocence until found guilty’. Is that the national ethos by which the Private Sector Commission is guided, one in which different measures are applied to difference people, notwithstanding the similarity of the alleged transgressions? What has been the Private Sector Commission’s position on the four public officials who were also before the courts and failed to have the courts dismiss the charges brought against them, but were appointed to public offices and their cases surreptitiously withdrawn under constitutional, and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ fiats? What`s their position on the scores of public sector employees who have been deprived of their livelihood?
I hold no brief for the individual GECOM employees, but I am committed to ensuring that they are not targeted, politically, as has been the case with employees in other state agencies. I will also continue to call out those stakeholders who seem to have agendas, as is demonstrated, in the case of the Private Sector Commission, by their non-transparency, inconsistency and duplicity when dealing with GECOM employees.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
