Is GECOM legitimising Fraud

Dear Editor, 

The decision made by the Guyana Elections Commis­sion to include in its tabulation, ballots which are patently unverifiable, threatens to make a mockery of the entire recount process. 

The Guyanese public was well schooled regarding the purpose of the recount an exercise aimed at detem1ining the credibility of the voting and result of the March 2, 2020 Gen­eral and Regional Elections. Indeed, as the third recital of the Order authorising the recount makes clear, the recount exer­cise is aim at” … determining a final credible count”. Against the background of calls for transparency, all Guyanese prepared themselves to be spec­tators at an event that promised to judge harshly any suggestion of impropriety or dishones­ty. Party scrutineers stood as linesmen and women to blow the whistle at any infraction, or any breach of elections laws and regulations. 

Then came the Lower East Coast saga and 41 boxes that appeared to have ballots but none of the statutorily required supporting documents. These documents are required! for tl1e specific purpose of eliminating voter fraud. It strains credulity to accept that the absence of verifying documents in all these 41 boxes is of no consequence and does not boldly scream electoral fraud. It is shocking therefore that GECOM decided that the votes in those offending 41 boxes were to be included in the tabulation of the recount process. Fundamental questions cannot be answered. Are those votes valid? Are the persons who cast those ballots legitimate voters? What documentation supports the legitimacy of those ballots? This recount process is not merely about counting votes, it is about counting valid votes. If one is merely counting votes, then what is the point of this recount process with its meticulous rec­onciliation requirements? 

Paragraph 14 of d1e Order· of May 4, 2020 which autho­rises the recount makes it clear that the recount is about valid votes and not simply votes. Paragraph 14 requires submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act Section 96 re­quires a report to be completed by the Chief Elections Officer ” … after calculation the total nun1ber of valid votes of elec­tors”. The distinction between simply a vote and a valid vote is thus specifically made in our electoral law and incorporated by reference into the Order authorising the recount. 

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines valid as based on truth or reason. As­cribing the ordinary meaning to the word valid d1erefore makes it clear that the votes cast in the 41 questionable boxes do not pass the validity test. There is no evidence in the boxes that the votes are based on truth or reason. 

While GECOM’s authority to issue the Order authorising the recount derives from Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 of Act 15 of 2000, the power so derived is not limitless. Article 162{1Xb) re­quires that any action taken by GECOM must be “necessary or expedient to ensure impar­tiality and fairness”. By no measure could the inclusion of votes whose validity is patently suspect be considered necessary to achieve impartiality or fairness. This is especially true since all the questionable votes were purportedly cast from a well-known stronghold of one party and overwhelming favour that party. After all, the hue and cry that gave rise to the recount in the first place are from far less well documented allegations of tabulating of invalid votes. 

How could GECOM then, with all the documen­tation provided and virtually unchallenged by anyone, include votes that art clearly 

not valid. To do so is not only unfair but also illegal.

Thank you

Sincerely,

B. Mayo Robertson

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_09_2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *