The March 2, 2020 elections is creating many precedents for elections in Guyana. The first was a recount of the ballots.
When the results were declared in March—there were two declarations, the last being on March 13—the opposition People’s Progressive Party moved to the courts to halt the swearing in of incumbent president, David Granger.
The party was at odds with the declaration of the District Four tabulation. Supported by the international community and the diplomatic community in Guyana, the argument was that the declaration was not transparent and certainly was not credible.
Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission, Justice Claudette Singh, in her testimony, said that the Guyana Elections Commission was not averse to a recount of the ballots. She convinced the court that GECOM had the power to order a recount.
Rather than be sworn in and face an international groundswell President David Granger got Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to agree to a recount. That was to be the first ever recount of an entire election in Guyana.
With the support of Caricom, a decision was taken to have a team come to Guyana to supervise the elections. A Coalition member Ulita Moore, moved to the courts to stop the recount. She argued that President David Granger did not have the authority to order a recount.
The opposition then moved to the court to challenge Ulita Moore’s contention and to block Justice Franklin Holder from hearing the action. The initial Caricom team left. But the court ruled that there could be a recount but that any Caricom team could not supervise the recount. It could scrutinize.
The recount was to be witnessed by the international observers who had been accredited in the first instance. By then COVID-19 had raised its head in Guyana, forcing certain measures. In the end a three-member Caricom team came.
It transpired that there was fraud on both sides contrary to the belief that only the District Four votes were tainted. Some now say that the PPP fraud can be ignored. There is a law for the government and another for the opposition who wants to accede to office at all costs.
It goes without saying that there was opposition to what turned out to be a forensic examination of the ballot boxes. Dead people voted; people who had migrated and were not in the country voted; presiding officers hid poll documents so that the votes cast could not be verified.
There was a long list of anomalies. It boggles the mind that GECOM would break its rules to tabulate votes that were questionable. The GECOM Chairperson said that the aim was not to disenfranchise anyone.
Lawyers were quick to point out that one could not disenfranchise a dead voter or a voter who never voted although records show that he did.
The country is now at the crossroads. The Chief Elections Officer presented a report that detailed the anomalies because GECOM had told the contesting political parties that the anomalies would be listed and dealt with at the end of the recount.
In the end the GECOM Chairperson ruled that the Chief Elections Officer could not detail the anomalies because these were allegations. But some of these were proven to be true. More than 500 people who resided overseas and were not here for the polls, voted. This was confirmed by the Chief Immigration Officer.
People came forward to say that they were here but none of them presented themselves to the police to establish the veracity of their claims.
The elections commission is now saying that its people rigged the elections for the PPP. Many presiding officers took money from the Jagdeo cabal. One lady who was said to be a teacher at St Joseph High and who went on some trysts with a leading politician reportedly got a lot of money that she is trying to build her home. She is reportedly hiding out in Trinidad and Tobago as I write this piece.
Many others were similarly complicit. In the case of the 29 ballot boxes found without any poll document the GECOM chairperson asked that the responsible presiding officers be summoned. When they failed to turn up advice was given that the police be called in. This advice was not taken.
At issue is the declaration. He law speaks to valid votes but who determines which votes are valid? Some say that once the votes are tabulated they are valid. But there is also the view that those that were not tainted are the valid votes.
I spoke with former GECOM Chairman Dr Steve Surujbally on his role during his tenure. He said that his commission rarely needed his vote because there was almost always consensus. He said that he never had to direct his Chief Elections Officer and he always accepted the report because they all had the same figures.
But did he have the authority to direct his Chief Elections Officer? He did not believe so. And this is a burning issue at this time. The opposition was quick to latch on to the fact that the Chairperson instructed the Chief Elections Officer to prepare his report consistent with the recount.
This is another precedent but it is being tested. The Chief Elections Officer knows the law as it pertains to his functions. He is not likely to accept any directive.
Can GECOM take a decision and make a declaration outside the report by the Chief Elections Officer? I don’t know and I await the outcome of the court challenge.
