GECOM has decided demarcation report meets standard required despite evidence to the contrary

Dear Editor,

GECOM yesterday, after haggling over the issue of the demarcation of constituency boundaries from November 2022 to January 2023, decided that the report of the CEO met the standard required of such a report. The opposition appointed Commissioners differ for the following reasons:-

1. The criteria and procedures (geography, community and population) for the demarcation of constituencies previously used were thrown out. The Chairperson and the Government appointed commissioners argued that no minutes could be found to show that they had been approved. The CEO previously argued that there were no points of reference of the previously developed and used procedures and criteria. Documents were produced to show that they existed. He then resorted to contend that there were no approved minutes.

2. The records clearly show that the procedures and criteria that were discussed from May 2009 to December 2009 were actually implemented and were the basis for the configuration of constituencies in 2016 and 2018.

3. The CEO in his own words articulated that he and his staff determined what criteria (population and a distorted concept of geography) should be applied. Imagine a Commission threw out collectively determined criteria and procedures and accepted the validity of a report that resulted from a process that was crafted by the CEO, deficient and never approved by the Commission.

4. The report represents exactly what the Minister had illicitly sought to foist on GECOM. In other words, GECOM has now clothed the Minister’s illicit act with its approval.

5. The opposition appointed commissioners have reserved the right to provide statistical evidence to show that the proposed boundaries are simply acts of gerrymandering aimed at giving the PPP an unfair advantage in the upcoming local government elections.

6. While the discussion so far was about the validity of the report, the Government appointed commissioners are insisting that there should be no discussion on the content of the report.

Sincerely,

Vincent Alexander