Dear Editor,
As a Commissioner of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) who has been subjected to the “Rulings” of the Chairman of GECOM, Retired Justice Claudette Singh, it would be remiss of me not to comment on her rare statement to the Press: “Anything I do, I do in accordance with the law and I try, as a former judge, I always try to uphold the rule of law.”
Here are my comments:
1. It is apparent that Justice Singh has misconceived the nature of GECOM. GECOM is a constitutional body, which is tasked with the administrative responsibility for the conduct of free, fair and transparent elections, in Guyana. GECOM`s operations are therefore not limited to interpreting, and making decisions based on, the law. Many of its decisions are not premised on any law, except for the procedural requirements such as the right to a hearing et al. While administration should be conducted within the framework of the rule of law, there is much more to it than merely adhering to the rule of law. To ignore the other factors, such as purpose and suitability, when making decisions, can undermine the intended goals of the administrative processes. It is such requirements of administrators juxtaposed to the Chairperson`s statement that occasioned this letter.
2. This letter has also been prompted by experiences where, in my layman`s opinion, the law was misinterpreted and/ or misapplied by the Chairperson.
3. The case of the “Ruling” on the request for the internal review of the conduct of the 2020 elections, by GECOM, stands out as one instance of the misapplication and misinterpretation of the law, to wit the Constitution of Guyana.
4. In casting her vote in alignment with the votes of the PPP/C Commissioners, the Chairperson contended that such a review is not within GECOM`s jurisdiction. She concluded that “Article 163(1) (b) of the Constitution provides that the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an election has been lawfully conducted or the results thereof has been affected by an unlawful act or omission”.
5. In the presentation of her conclusion that “the review is not within GECOM`s jurisdiction’, she only cited a few of the nine whereas clauses of the motion, hence she did not address the motion in its entirety nor the substantive issues articulated in those clauses which she did not cite. She also did not respond, specifically, to the Resolve Clauses: “… that GECOM conducts its own independent Review to gain a better understanding of the bases for the aforementioned allegations and occurrences and to consider whether there are existing or potential weaknesses in the processes employed by GECOM for the conduct of elections.” and “that recommendations be sought in an effort to improve on the methods and processes employed in the electoral system and to remove the bases for the possible reoccurrences of the maladies, procedural or otherwise, that occurred or may occur under the current electoral process.” These resolutions do not speak to the impact of the findings on the 2020 elections. They speak to the functionality of GECOM`s systems.
6. The whereas clauses, in no way or fashion collide with the jurisdiction of the High Court. While, the High Court is intended to focus on the impact of certain acts on the results. The motion focusses on whether the system is deficient and requires rectification.
7. The intent of the motion clearly falls within the jurisdiction of GECOM as prescribed in the Constitution, which states in Article 162(1) (b) that the Com-mission “shall issue such instructions and take such action as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of this Constitution or any Act of Parlia-ment on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to the matters aforesaid”.
8. The motion clearly sought to provide for GECOM to be better able to “exercise general direction and supervision over … the administrative conduct of all elections” as provided for in Article 162(1) (a).
9. The constitutional provisions, in my humble opinion, were clearly misinterpreted and misapplied. GECOM in any circumstance should be reviewing its operations from an evaluative perspective based on best practices, in management, with the aim of enhancing its operations, as was called for by the motion. GECOM has previously done this in its spheres of Human Resources Management and Information Technology.
I have alluded to one example of the misinterpretation and misapplication of law by the Chairperson. To wit, when pronouncing on the decision of the Commission, her prepared statements cannot be treated as rulings based on law. They can only be considered as her vote on the matter, at hand. She therefore cannot even claim the right to make decisions.
Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
Commissioner, GECOM
