IN my previous column, I opined: ‘elections observers should be welcomed by all democratic nations and governments who proceed from a position of honorable intentions. Observers can spot fraud, offer recommendations to improve the electoral process, enhance the legitimacy or confirm the illegitimacy of a regime and help countries to strengthen their elections procedures, laws and systems’. At times, when observer missions get it wrong, it can be disastrous, as clearly and recently evidenced by the case of Haiti and Bolivia. In the case of Haiti in the 2010 elections, the Organisation of the American States (OAS) recommended changing the results of the elections with no evidentiary basis for doing so. In notable addition, recent findings on the Bolivian elections are proving that Evo Morales, the former President, was a victim of an observer mission’s tacit coup d’etat. These two cases ought to be of much interest to all Guyanese as we analyse developments of our recently-concluded national elections. This column does not seek to vilify our international friends, nor does it seek to pontificate on the just-concluded elections. This serves to provide information for educative purposes in anticipation of enhanced public debates.

THE CASE OF HAITI
Haiti’s election occurred on November 28, 2010 and was mired in controversy in the first round. Upon the completion of voting by Haitians, the Conseil Electoral Provisoire, Haiti’s version of GECOM, declared the results. First place went to the former First Lady, Mirlande Manigat; Jude Celestin, the government’s candidate, came in second and third place went to Micheal Martelly. The results showed a tight separation of 0.7 per cent between second and third place and this provided fertile ground for cries of electoral fraud or in the Haitian creole, ‘fwod’ and shouts of rigging or ‘gréement’. Numerous allegations of widespread cheating led to the OAS being invited to settle all disputes. The OAS appointed a committee of seven experts to provide oversight and judgment on the election. They recommended a reversal of the first-round results which put Martelly second and Celestin third.

Subsequently, an OAS report on the elections was released and the findings were consistent with the sentiments of the team of experts. This report has been reviewed and critiqued by many, including David Rosnick of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

In his report, ‘The Organisation of American States in Haiti: election monitoring or political intervention?’, he submitted the following:
‘This de-legitimation of the 2000 election, which was not based on any significant flaws in the electoral process itself, was a crucial element in bringing about the 2004 coup against the elected government. The OAS, therefore, contributed significantly to this destabilisation and overthrow of democratic government in Haiti’

THE CASE OF BOLIVIA
The case of Eva Morales and the Bolivian elections is emerging as one of the biggest embarrassment for observers and the work they execute. Bolivia’s elections commenced on October 20th, 2019, there were nine candidates including the leftist President, Eva Morales. Morales, Bolivia’s first Indigenous President has been a persistent thorn in the side of the United States due to his leftist policies and fiery rhetoric. Bolivians submitted their votes and the results produced by the Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE), showed Morales in separation from the next closest candidate by 7.9 per cent, short of the 10 per cent required to avoid a second round. The seven million registered voters and the rest of the population watched in anxious anticipation of the final results. A sudden stoppage in the transmission of the results sparked allegations of electoral fraud which mushroomed into a public relations blitzkrieg that resulted in Evo Morales being exiled in Mexico. This unexplained break in the displaying of the results was the popular basis for the media, the opposition, the international community and the observers to discredit these elections and the President never got a chance to recover from the avalanche of accusations, he resigned under excruciating pressure. One year later, the report, ‘Observing the Observers: The OAS in the 2019 Bolivian Elections’, written by Jake Johnston and David Rosnick and commissioned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has revealed that Morales was a victim of deliberate dishonesty by the OAS observer mission. The report found that 299 tally sheets which were deemed by the OAS to have forged signatures were completely false. Also, on page four, the following is documented:

‘The unethical conduct of the OAS in Bolivia has had deeply disturbing consequences. The fraud narrative that the OAS helped promote contributed to Evo Morales, the country’s democratically-elected president, fleeing the country — aboard a plane sent by Mexico — months before his term ended; other officials — including former members of Bolivia’s electoral authority — sit in jail; and an unelected de facto government has assumed power with the support of the military and has engaged in violent repression of protests, the persecution of political opponents, and a drastic change in foreign policy.’

THE CASE OF GUYANA
It might be too early to cast judgment on the elections of March 2, but there is an eerie pattern of similarity with the abovementioned cases has emerged. Guyana is ripe for a baseless narrative of electoral fraud because it has a regrettable rich history of electoral malpractice, it is easy to construct a successful narrative which suggests there is rigging. Also, the political opposition embarked on an unprecedented public relations campaign to convince all and sundry that the government was dead set on manipulating the elections, so the stage was perfectly set. On March 3, the Region Four Returning Officer stopped the agreed process to tally the votes and there was a disparity between the figures he called from his Statement of Polls (SOPs) and the dubious SOPs in the possession of anti-government forces, this sparked a frenzy which almost manifested into the Evo Morales and Bolivia scenario. The OAS was front and centre of the international community’s concerns which was hijacked by the political opposition and communicated as an outcry of electoral fraud. The political opposition is aided by Mercury Public Relations, a US political consultancy with strong ties to the OAS and the Trump administration. This company has constructed a public relations coup d’etat that has cemented the idea of fraud in the Guyana elections that may prove at a later date to be completely false.
The evidence suggests that observers do get it wrong, who will observe the observers?

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

– calls on citizens to respect the rule of law, be patient

PRESIDENT David Granger has condemned acts of civil violence, which was perpetrated in Region Five (Mahaica-Berbice).

The President expressed concern about the situation, after a private property, located in Bush Lot, West Coast Berbice was torched and destroyed in what is reported to be an act of arson. According to reliable sources, the property was a butcher shop owned and operated by a known supporter of the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) coalition.

“I was saddened to learn, today (Saturday), of the destruction of private property and of attacks on innocent citizens on March 20, 2020 in Bush Lot Village in the Mahaica-Berbice, Region Five. I condemn these hateful acts of hostility aimed at terrorizing innocent citizens and instigating discord,” President Granger said in a statement, on Saturday.

In light of these acts of violence, the President called for good sense to prevail and urged residents to desist from communal violence. He also called on the perpetrators to cease these criminal acts immediately.

As a show of his seriousness, President Granger said: “I urge the law enforcement agencies to act swiftly to ensure the safety of citizens and to bring perpetrators to justice. The Guyana Police Force must ensure that law and order prevails in the interest of the protection of citizens and the state.”
The recent acts of violence on innocent civilians and their property follow attacks on schoolchildren and on law enforcement officers on March 5, 2020, in Region Five. The President said the local media also showed images of a “hooligan,” brandishing a firearm in confrontation with policemen on March 06 at Lusignan.

There were also reports of “lawlessness” at Black Bush Polder, Tain, and East Canje in Region Six (East Berbice-Corentyne).

“I extend my sympathy to the children and police officers who have been injured and to the family which lost its property in the apparent arson at Bush Lot Village. I express my condolences to the family of the person who was shot in the fracas. I condemn the violence and criminal acts that have occurred since March 02, 2020,” President Granger said.
In this regard, he called on citizens to respect the rule of law and to be patient as they await the ruling of the Supreme Court and the completion of the electoral process by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

President Granger, in an address to the nation on Friday, had said GECOM and the Judiciary must be allowed to execute their functions without inference.

It has been 19 days since thousands of Guyanese went to the polls, but attempts by the elections commission to declare the results have been met with litigations.

Amid claims of a flawed electoral process, President Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, had agreed to have the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) supervise a national recount of all the votes cast on March 02, but that too was blocked by an injunction filed in the High Court last Tuesday, March 17.

The Head of State, who has repeatedly iterated his respect for the Constitution, laws of the country, Judiciary and GECOM, said the independent institutions must be allowed to carry out their mandate.

“I have iterated, always, my commitment to respect the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, to protect the integrity of the chairperson and members of the elections commission and to obey the rulings of the courts. I am confident that these institutions, once allowed to function without interference, will provide a solution to the present situation,” he told the nation on Friday.

President Granger, who led the APNU+AFC Coalition into the elections as the presidential candidate, said all and sundry must demonstrate respect for the elections commission as it executes its function, and desist from attacking Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, the Chairperson of GECOM, and the other arms of the elections commission.

“The elections commission has the sole authority for the conduct of general and regional elections and must be allowed to function independent of political interference, instruction and influence,” President Granger said.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, the Head of State had endorsed moves by the Chairperson of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Mia Amor Mottley, to assist Guyana by sending a high-level delegation to oversee the recount of ballots cast at the elections, but this initiative has been temporarily blocked in the High Court.

“I am disappointed that the high-level team of five departed Guyana this week after efforts towards a ‘total national recount’ were stymied following the granting of an injunction by the Supreme Court. This matter remains before the court,” he said, while noting that the country’s democracy allows for interested parties to approach the Supreme Court of Judicature for judicial review of the electoral laws.

The Head of State has maintained that the electoral process must be credible. “Free and fair elections are essential to representative democracy,” he told the nation.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

Dear editor,
I DO know some may view this as premature, but I am so confident that I will say this even before the official results are declared. A massive congratulation to the APNU+AFC government on it’s well deserved election win. I am disappointed with the one-seat majority, since I do believe that the government’s overall performance over the past five years should have been rewarded with at least a three-seat majority. Having said that, a win is a win, not only for APNU+AFC, but for all of Guyana.

The PPP is clearly struggling to accept their second-place position for the third successive year. Presently, they are like headless chickens running around complaining of electoral fraud, rigging and cheating. This is so hypocritical coming from a party of thieves and three-card tricksters. I have arrived at this conclusion after receiving very credible information of the PPP paying for votes in APNU+AFC strongholds. As a result, I did some investigations and was able to identify 10 families who were paid $10,000 per vote. The process to earn this $10,000 was simple. Place your X next to the cup then take a photo as evidence. This image is then sent to the PPP and the $10,000 is secured. Here is the catch. Many persons placed their X next to the cup but ensured that it was done lightly. The photo was then taken as evidence to secure the $10,000. The X next to the cup was then immaculately erased and placed next to APNU+AFC.

The PPP none the wiser, paid up the $10,000 and added that to their SoPs as a vote earned. I do recognise that this was not a scientific poll, but I am confident this was being conducted on a larger scale. It is my opinion that this is the reason why PPP SoPs were different from GECOM’s. They thought that every $10,000 that they paid out would equate to one vote. As a result, they became hot under the collar when GECOM broke the bad news to them that they were duped. They could not believe this; they have the photographic evidence of the vote they paid for. As a result, they rejected the spreadsheet and demanded to see the SoPs. When they saw the SoPs were consistent with the spreadsheets, it was then the penny dropped. This explained why they and their sidekicks parties reluctantly but belatedly requested a recount. They knew the ultimate “betrayal” awaited them in that box, but it was too painful to see it. It also explains why Bharrat Jagdeo was so confident that they had gained 10,000 votes in Region Four compared to 2015. Also, that’s why they were shocked that GECOM’s SoPs indicated that they did not win Sophia.

So now the PPP is complaining of rigging and electoral fraud and able to convince many without an iota of evidence. As a result, I would ask the question, if what they did by paying for votes is not rigging and electoral fraud? I am no lawyer, but it surely sounds that way to me. Bharrat Jagdeo and his gang of three-card tricksters thought they could trick the electorate, but the electorate rightfully fleeced them of the $10,000. PPP were absolutely right that the elections were rigged; they were the ones who did the rigging.

Finally, before I go please let me extend a hearty thank you to Bharrat Jagdeo and his gang of thieves, on behalf of the recipients that were paid $10,000. They have all assured me that they have used it to invest in champagnes which they presently have on ice. They have reported that it is getting a bit hot due to the protracted elections, but that is fine by them. The plan is that when Mr. Granger is sworn in as President, they will have a celebratory popping of the champagnes. Once again, thanks for making this possible. They have reported that without the PPP’s kind intervention they would have had to celebrate with water.

Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

Were the Guyana elections fraudulent?
First, was the voting process fraudulent?
After polls closed, the following comments were made by Observer missions:

The Carter Center:

“The Center’s 41 observers conducted 220 observations in polling stations across all 10 regions, in addition to observing the advance voting for disciplined forces that took place on Feb. 21. Carter Center observers reported that voting and counting processes were largely well-organised and peaceful, and assessed the implementation of voting procedures as positive, with only occasional inadequacies….
GECOM utilised its strong base of electoral expertise to conduct well-managed voting-day operations. The voting and counting processes were generally well-prepared and logistically sound.”

Organisation of American States (OAS) Observer mission head Commended the people of Guyana on their strong democratic commitment, which he said was reflected in their peaceful and enthusiastic participation in the polls.

European Union Observer mission:
They described the voting as “well managed” with everyone able to express their franchise.

Commonwealth Observer mission: Commended the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on its hosting of an efficient election process on March 2.
“Polling conducted in an orderly, transparent and a largely peaceful environment. Polling stations were generally well organised and prepared for the polls and opened promptly…staff appeared to be well trained and we commend them for their professionalism and their diligence,”

CARICOM Election Observation Mission: Satisfied that the conduct of the Poll was “free, fair and transparent.”

Said the people of Guyana “should be proud of themselves,” and the mission salutes the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the citizens of the country “for the peaceful conduct of the poll,” and expects that the results of the poll “will reflect the free expression of the will and aspirations of the Guyanese people, for a government of their choice.”

The various comments from the observer missions convey that the voting process in the elections was well managed, peaceful, proceeded largely without incident and was free, fair and transparent.

It is therefore, reasonable to conclude then that the voting process was not fraudulent.
Secondly, was the counting/tabulation fraudulent?
Consequently, dissatisfaction was expressed about the tabulation in Region Four.

SPREADSHEET
Complaint was made about the Returning Officer tabulating from a spreadsheet and not directly from the statements of poll. This was not unusual as it is a common practice by ROs to populate a spreadsheet from the SOPs and then tabulate from the spreadsheet, and this process was actually used in some of the other regions in these elections.  Purely an operational issue where parties rely on the RO.  The PPP/C was not prepared to rely on the RO in Region Four, as they had done in some of the other regions.

PPP/C demanded that the RO must do the tabulation directly from the SOPs.  They stormed GECOM’s offices demanding documents and abusing and intimidating GECOM staff.   They also went to court and the court ordered the RO to tabulate directly from the SOPs.

PRESENCE OF ALL PARTIES

RO restarted the tabulation using the SOPs. After that, the complaint was then that the tabulation was not being done in the presence of all parties, where all parties could see the SOPs. See joint statement from Observers.

Joint Statement – March 6
The international observer missions from the Commonwealth, the Organisation of American States, the European Union, and The Carter Center issued the following statement:
“The tabulation of results for the election in Region Four was interrupted and remains incomplete. The law requires that tabulation must be conducted in the presence of party agents and observers. Until this transparent process takes place, the counting of votes recorded for Region Four remains incomplete.
The transparent tabulation of results for Region Four must be resumed in order to proceed to the establishment of national results.

A calm and conducive environment must be provided by the police. We urge all political parties to adhere to the codes of conduct signed by them.
The Guyana Elections Commission, including the chairperson, the commissioners, the chief elections officer, the returning officer and deputy returning officers in Region Four, must be available and committed to establishing the results for Region Four in accordance with the law.
Until this occurs, the result of these elections cannot be credibly declared.”

The entire statement is reproduced so that it is clear what the complaint from the observers was at that stage.

The complaints at this point were all procedural related, as they were all about how the RO was proceeding.  Complaints were about transparency, not about fraud.  Those complaints were addressed.
The RO moved proceedings to GECOM head office where there was the facility to display SOPs on the screen for all to see. The process was continued and completed at GECOM.  That process would have satisfied the specific requirements mentioned in the joint statement.  So, it is not clear: What is the specific problem that some of the observers continue to have about the last tabulation done from the SOPs on March 13? All parties were present, and all SOPs were displayed for all to see.
Before that process was completed, new complaints emerged.  The new complaint was now based on what one can only be described as a spurious claim made by the PPP/C.

DIFFERENT FROM PPP/C’S SOPS
The PPP/C has claimed that SOPs used by the RO in Region Four were different from the SOPs it has, which it displayed on its website. Amazingly, the OAS Observer Mission mentioned that and said that because GECOM and APNU did not challenge PPP/C’s SOPs, the implications were “deeply troubling.”  This is amazing because GECOM is the constitutional authority in this process, and credence must be given to their SOPs over those of any other party.  GECOM has no obligation or responsibility to challenge SOPs presented by any other party.  This view of GECOM’s status is consistent with all parties previously maintaining that GECOM is the only authority who can declare elections results.

Apart from the fact that GECOM’s SOPs are what must be considered, it should be noted that the first publication by PPP/C of its vote tally stated that the document was prepared on February 29, 2020, two days before the elections (See Table One below).  That alone should have raised questions and doubt about the authenticity of the PPP/C’s numbers. That initial tally was withdrawn and replaced with one dated March 5, 2020.

SHIFTING COMPLAINTS
Importantly, neither PPP/C, Observers nor diplomats have stated specifically how the tabulation exercise on March 13 did not comply with the law, and neither has any credible reason or evidence been provided to question the SOPs used by GECOM.

The events mentioned above indicate that there were shifting complaints as the process evolved and in respect of the last one, relating to the PPP/C SOPs, it is more than strange that SOPs produced by a political party could be used, without any other corroborating evidence, as a basis for questioning the integrity of the SOPs of the constitutional authority GECOM…..the same GECOM which was praised by observers for its handling of the “well managed” and “free, fair and transparent” elections.   A higher standard must be required and applied if the integrity of the otherwise praiseworthy constitutional body is to be called into question.

Controversy
The impression has been given by some that there was controversy about counting and tabulation of votes only in Region Four.   This is incorrect.  In Regions Three and Six, APNU+AFC objected to tabulations done by the ROs and requested recounts of the votes. The RO denied the request in Region Three.  In Region Six, the recount is suspended until further notice because APNU+AFC has insisted that new blank SOPs should be used for the recount, and PPP/C has refused to open its lock on the container for the blank SOPs to be retrieved.

OBSERVERS
It is interesting that very strident and questionable comments were made by the leaders of the OAS and Commonwealth Observer Missions when compared with comments by other observer missions.  In both cases, they raised objections to the declarations made by the RO for Region Four presumably because they were different from the SOPs and tally produced by the PPP/C.  This begs the following question: Is it a mere coincidence that the leaders of those two missions are former Prime Ministers of Caribbean countries who were in office when the current Guyana leader of the opposition was President and are his close friends?  We can only speculate about the answer, but the events do suggest that better care ought to have been taken by both organisations in the choice of leader of their observer missions.

When viewed dispassionately, the complaints about a lack of transparency in the process in Region Four were addressed.  Initially, the process adopted was no different than in other regions.  Ultimately, the process followed was in keeping with the legal requirements, and special arrangements were made for all parties to view the SOPs used by GECOM to complete the tabulation. The complaints of a lack of transparency in the tabulation exercise were fully addressed by the RO and GECOM.

Equally, the allegations of fraud have arisen solely from one political party producing SOPs different from those held by the constitutional authority responsible for the elections. They have provided no evidence to support an allegation that GECOM’s SOPs could be fraudulent.

Regrettably, observers and diplomats have apparently bought into the PPP/C’s narrative without sufficient objective examination of the facts and in the absence of any evidence to support fraud.

It is a dangerous precedent to question the integrity and work of a constitutional body without any compelling evidence and solely based on unsupported allegations made by a political party which has a vested interest.  Such action undermines both the constitutional body as well as democracy in Guyana.

NATIONAL RECOUNT
The President, in his judgment, saw it fit to invite CARICOM to oversee a recount of all votes in all regions.  He did so in an effort to settle all issues in the presence of CARICOM as another independent body.  The leader of the opposition agreed to this process.   Both Leaders insisted that such a recount must be undertaken in compliance with the Constitution and laws of Guyana. CARICOM accepted that condition as well.  Consequently, there was agreement on the procedure to be adopted within that framework.

Subsequently, a Guyanese citizen has taken issue with this arrangement, and is mounting a challenge in the Supreme Court and in the interim has obtained an injunction to halt the recount.  The right of the citizen to take this action cannot be denied and ought to be respected.  This action ought to be welcomed by all stakeholders as the Supreme Court will adjudicate on the legality of the process, which should be a concern for everyone involved.  It is unfortunate that the Chairman of CARICOM has ascribed ulterior motives to this development.  This response from the chairman could well call into question CARICOM’s status as a “honest broker” going forward in this process.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

Dear Editor
THE Following paragraph is quoted from a Private Sector Commission (PSC) release regarding the Guyana Police Force (GPF). … “the PSC cites the complete failure of the police to prevent mass crowds of the governing party’s political supporters actively harassing and threatening observers, party officials and media professionals in the course of their respective functions, both outside of GECOM and at other places.”

Notwithstanding this well-known umbrella commerce and business arm that comprises elements of friends, cronies and other types who would have benefitted from the proceedings of the criminal state that flourished during the tenure of the PPP/C; and who, naturally, joined that party’s insurgency bandwagon bent on destabilising Guyana in the post-2015 dispensation, this cabal of mostly unconscionable sorts and anti-nationals, has seen it fit to lend its services to the now exposed American lobby firm, Mercury, as it continues its patently fake news, lies and disinformation against the Government of Guyana.

The above quote can only be described as preposterous; an absurdity, that vile and wicked in its evil construct, as it now seeks to tarnish the professionalism of the GPF.

Editor, it is unbelievable that these political mercenaries whose only interests have been about themselves and vested interests, and what they have derived from their association with the PPP/C government, can now turn their attention to a body whose efforts at upholding its dispensation of its duties, acting with great restraint at the scenes of PPP/C attacks on a government minister within the precincts of the Pegasus hotel; and the criminal invasion of the GECOM Command Centre in the early hours of March 05, signalled a law-enforcement body that constrained itself from what should have been relevant postures in dealing with such threatening situations, so as to avoid accusations of heavy- handed tactics against so-called peaceful opposition initiatives which REALLY WERE NOT, but instead were intended to incite public mayhem.

Let the PSC answer as to its abysmal failure in its deafening silence in not condemning the brutal attacks against innocent and defenceless children being driven home from school in a David G school bus. One further wonders, just how more professional could those brave ranks sent to maintain law and order at Bath Settlement could have been, when, despite coming under attack by a politically inspired mob, they took evasive action by firing their weapons into the air, until their ammunition ran out, before running into nearby yards for protection. And is the PSC also, by its collective silence, giving approval to the ill- advised cutlass attack that almost ended the lives of policemen in the line of duty? If this is the PSC’s understanding of professionalism of policemen sent to maintain law and order, being attacked by cutlass wielders, allowing themselves to be hacked to death because of their being in the community that supports the PSC’s political horse, then it is yet another manifestation of the dangerously political convenience of this private sector umbrella body. It is a hypocrisy and double standard that stinks by the hour. But this is the PSC’s moral stance. This is what it stands for. This is its national position.

But concomitantly, one must add the fact that this band of opportunists stands accused of outright political racism, because if such an incident had taken place in another section of the Guyanese community, there would have been instant condemnation from all and sundry, inclusive of the political opportunist types such as the PSC and their Gerry Gouveias.

In mentioning the police’s failure to “prevent mass crowds of the governing party’s actively threatening observers….”, is a desperate attempt to paint the coalition’s supporters as “lawless”; but instead, they must be commended for keeping the peace in the face of the nastiest racist attacks, yet unloaded in this troubled country. It was most despicable to the say the least, yet the coalition supporters have kept their cool, displaying a high level of political maturity and responsibility.

Editor, apart from the fact of coalition party members who gathered in proximity, some metres away from the GECOM Command Centre in the hours following the outrageous assault on GECOM’S autonomy by PPP/C members and their armed death squad thugs, there was a later mass gathering at Coalition House on Lamaha Street, on the railway embankment, where party members sang hymns and other related songs of praise, followed by an address by coalition leader and President. Neither at both sites was there cause for the police to prevent “the mass gatherings,’’ since the supporters were orderly. But here, I should ask, whether the PSC did witness the unprovoked verbal assault on the person of a senior coalition minister by a former PPP/C potentate, who had falsely accused a police rank of physical assault in the National Assembly a while ago? I am certain that it is aware of such an incident.

Yes, during the High Court hearings there were coalition supporters but not “massed,’’ or “harassing’’ and “threatening” any of the observers, party officials etcetera. Instead, there were loud boos, as these persons exited the courts; not the type that matches the description of the baseless PSC’S accusations against assembled coalition members. At least there was adequate police protection at those instances, at all times, in position for any eventuality. But not menacingly and ready to shoot at peaceful gatherings, as was the culture during the Jagdeo and Ramotar regimes.

No one needs to be reminded by the PSC as to whom they represent, since its listing of the business and commerce concerns seems to be done as a show of strength. Such would not solve this nation’s problems, exacerbated by the shameful actions of either some of its components, or its collective whole, in joining the Jagdeo post- 2015 bandwagon. However, its collectivity outlines the divide of the nation and further explains the why of what has continued to occur.

In the meantime, the Guyana Police Force is continuing to have the full cooperation of sensible citizens, conducting its duly appointed mission of maintaining the peace and protecting ALL Guyanese. It is not a force that is functioning under political dictates/directives, as what had obtained prior to May 2015. Had it been, the outcome of the lawless, threatening behaviour that threatened the physical well-being of schoolchildren, policemen and women, ordinary citizens and damage to the public road at Lusignan would have been met with brute force, tear gas and pellets or live rounds.
However, the right to protest and have dissenting views have been respected by the APNU+AFC since 2015

Regards
Earl Hamilton

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

THE developments in the wake of the March 2 elections have prompted a renewal of the debate over the kind of political system that is best suited to the ethno-political nature of the Guyanese society. This debate arises from the widespread feeling that Guyana needs a deliberate process of national reconciliation. Clearly, the events since March 2 have again highlighted how politically divided the country is and exposes its vulnerability as we enter the era of oil and gas. It is against this background that analysts have revisited power-sharing in the form of a National Government as an alternative to one-party or one-dominant party governance.

The debate over power-sharing dates back to the early 1960s when on the eve of what turned out to be a prolonged period of bitter ethnic disturbances, Eusi Kwayana, then known as Sydney King, proposed a system of “Joint Premiership” as a possible solution to the gathering crisis. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected, and the rest is now history. Since then, the issue has been engaged by successive political generations with little movement beyond rhetoric. The PPP’s 1977 National Patriotic Front, the WPA’s 1979 Government of National Unity and Reconstruction and the joint PNC-PPP “Fatherland” proposal come to mind, with the latter actually evolving into actual talks between the two sides.

In the wake of the disputed 1997 elections and the signing of the Herdmanston Accord, the issue was raised anew. This time the lead was taken by a younger generation of PNC leaders who along with some independent voices and organisations such as ACDA, sought to convince the then top leadership of the PNC that “shared governance” as they preferred to call it was the path to national harmony. The PPP poured cold water on the initiative by arguing that any power -sharing mechanism must be preceded by trust between the two major parties.

But after a period of hesitation, the PNC through its then leader Desmond Hoyte, threw its full support behind the idea. In one of the most memorable statements on power-sharing, Hoyte argued the following: “ An adjusted system of governance for our country — whether we call it “power-sharing”, “shared governance” or any other name  appears to be an idea whose time has come. It could hardly be claimed that our present arrangements are working in the best interests of the country and its citizens. The imperfections obtrude everywhere and are a serious obstacle to national cohesion and development. In the circumstances, the imperative of constitutional adjustment appears to be unavoidable. We cannot stand on the seashore and bid the waves recede. I suggest, therefore, that we as a party give careful and anxious consideration to the insistent voices that are calling for constitutional and political reform.”

Unfortunately, Hoyte died a few months after that declaration. It was left to his successor, Robert Corbin, to advance the agenda. He reached out to the PPP and sought agreement on a joint government, but that initiative was scuttled by the top PPP leadership. Corbin then settled for an abbreviated arrangement with the WPA and other opposition groups that saw the evolution of the APNU in 2011. This group was later broadened to include the AFC in what became known as the APNU+AFC Coalition. The coalition committed itself to an inclusive form of governance in its manifesto and actually began to lay the groundwork for the necessary constitutional reform. But it did not find a willing ally in the PPP which has continued to hold steadfastly to the winner-takes-all form of governance.

So, in the wake of the just concluded elections and the sharp ethno-political divide that has re-emerged, the question of power-sharing has again surfaced. One of the newer parties, ANUG, actually made the issue the centre of its campaign. But it was a statement by Kwayana and Moses Bhagwan, both foundation members of the WPA, that placed the issue at the forefront of the current debate. The two political elders made the following plea: “ We ask that you find the grace to enter without delay into talks to establish a national government based on the principle of parity. Such negotiations would necessarily have to be consistent with the constitution, but it is entirely possible to envision a situation, for example, in which the winner of the 2020 elections takes the presidency but asks their prime ministerial candidate to resign, so that someone from the other major party can be appointed and where a collective cabinet can be appointed. Such a compromise would also give greater latitude to MPs to vote against the government instead of following the herd, offering greater opportunities for accountability against corruption.” 

Since the Kwayana-Bhagwan statement the response has mirrored the partisan divide. Those sympathetic to the PPP have dismissed the proposal as a gambit aimed at denying the PPP its right to govern. One such commentator, Christopher Ram, called on the two elders to instead ask Granger to concede the election to the PPP and dismissed the power-sharing proposal as a recipe for gridlock. On the other hand, it has gained the support of organisations such as ACDA, the WPA and commentators such as Henry Jeffrey.

This publication lends its voice to the call for national reconciliation regardless of the eventual winners of the election. We feel that a power-sharing arrangement in the form of a national government that includes both the coalition parties and the PPP is an idea worth exploring. Guyana simply cannot afford the conflict that arises from the winner-takes-all system. The coalition parties have already committed themselves to an inclusive form of governance. It is now up to the PPP to signal its acceptance of such an approach. Every day that party resists movement away from one-party domination, it is subjecting Guyana to unnecessary anxiety and instability.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

It is slowly but surely seeping into the sinews of our soul that we are waging a war against an enemy that is invisible, but certainly not invincible. Yes, it is the war against the novel Caronavirus (COVID-19). It was beaten back in the People’s Republic of China, and almost chased out from the territory from which it originated.

But it has invisibly migrated and found a new epicenter in Italy, and is moving speedily in Western Europe, and down across to the Atlantic to North America, and into the Caribbean. At the speed with which it is spreading, if it is not contained, COVID-19 could destroy within months a big portion of the world’s population.

MOVIE FEARS
I have seen this frightening probability some years ago in Inferno, a scary Tom Hanks movie, in which the plot of an insane scientist was to detonate a biological weapon in a city with a high density in population, such as in Italy, and to let the virus travel to other crowded places.

Somehow, the movie reminded me of the unscientific fears of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) about the economics of over-population and under-production. That fear over exponential population growth had resulted during the 1970s in sterilisation schemes of one sort or the other in several countries, including the most populous – China and India.
Styled “family planning”, another version of sterilisation was the theme of the Matt Damon movie, Downsizing, which depicted the possibility of reducing members of the human race into miniatures of ourselves.

The movies might have a point, but right now, right here, our people are living in dire fear of the coronavirus. We have gone into lock-down modes, fearful of touching even our own face, nose and eyes. We go to work if we have to, travel only when necessary, and observe advisories on good hygiene and sanitation.

PARTY POLITICS
Guyanese across the board understand that Caronavirus is not about party politics. It is not about racial sentiments. Yet I would see some folks (trolls, they are called) who foolishly feel safe behind their electronic devices or in some overseas rat-holes that they fear the virus would not infect, want to make it so. They pith the recent elections against the epidemic, and hopelessly see the latter as a political ploy. All I can say to this is that it is real, bro. The pandemic is daily killing hundreds out there, and has claimed one life in Guyana. We may be lucky so far, but we are not yet safe.

We must we grateful that our Government has been vigilant, and that President Granger has authorized several agencies to implement a Table of Measures to prevent and control the spread of the virus, and to save our people from further exposure and from infection.
The President has designated me Head of a National Task Force to coordinate and oversee the measures being taken by various front-line agencies, and to give these agencies, especially our medical, port health and sanitary workers, the support they need.
We started off as a Ministerial Task Force but we have since invited the Leader of the Opposition, and the leadership of civil society to take part in this important work to not only sensitise our people about the dangers of the virus, but to recommend actionable measures to be taken by relevant agencies.

We have done good so far, and civil society organisations are responding positively.
As I said at the initial press conference of the Task Force, this is not a partisan political or exclusively governmental task. “All of us, all of our Regions, the entire nation, are in it together…If not, all of us will loose loved ones, and all of us will be held accountable.”

SOUNDING BOARD
It may be an opportunity also to use this national emergency as a sounding board on whether our leaders are willing to work together for the common good of our people. I have seen in the past how this could work. I have seen how it worked when Guyana wanted to take ownership of the “commanding heights of the economy”; how “critical support” evolved when the PPP perceived that a national threat to Guyana’s sovereignty had existed. I had seen it work when an aged David Westmass, personal assistant to Cheddi Jagan, joined the People’s Militia, under which it was intended to make “every citizen a soldier”, to defend our country from aggression.

Today, when the enemy is COVID-19, no call is ever greater than that for national unity. COVID is not a terrorist. It has no suicide belt. It would not self destruct. We have to collectively defeat it. COVID-19 may be invisible but it is not invincible if all of us, not only have clean hands, but we join hands!

I sincerely believe that many Guyanese want this to happen. But they want to see the 2020 elections behind us. Many of us, including the President, agonise over the delay and the damage this has done to our national fabric. Our major ethnic groups, Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese, are dagger’s tip apart. Both the coronavirus pandemic and the fragile political situation, when combined, make an explosive time-bomb. It is an unprecedented situation that requires astute leadership.

RIGHT TIME
It is unfortunate that some elements and their foreign backers have been making all the noises in order to drown out the constitutional and legal processes. The Executive, however styled — “President Granger”, “APNU+AFC” – cannot dictate the outcome of these elections. The results of the elections would be determined by the Elections Commission, which is the only constitutional authority to do so. It must await the decisions of the Judiciary, an independent branch of the State.

Last week as I was heading into a meeting of the GY COVID Task Force, my son-in-law Dr. Dustaff Persaud, sent me this message:

“If it feels wrong to take action, it is the right time.

If it feels right to take action, you are too late.”
Our leaders, for various plausible reasons, may feel that it is wrong to have reproachment now. But the time is now, before the final declaration of results of the 2020 elections. They must indicate now that they are committed to a government of national unity.
This is the right time! March 22, 2020.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

I AM 35 years old and was raised under humble circumstances by my parents in Guyana. I came to develop a value system that has served me well thus far.  I learned along the way that “all that glitters is not gold” and that oftentimes people who appear to have the best of intentions may well be doing the dance of deception. Since I came to know of Major-General (MG) Joe Singh, I have always heard nothing but good things said about him. As a serious conservationist at heart myself, I have even followed his writings in the newspapers and was always impressed, until two days ago.
I never would have thought that one day I’d read words attributed to him that sow seeds of division amongst Guyanese. I have to confess that I am now deeply disappointed that MG Joe Singh has turned out to be the mercury, made to glitter like gold on a rusty surface, and the trusted uncle who is now exposed for what he was all along — the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Allow me, Editor, to respond to Major-General Singh’s recent open and highly disrespectful letter to His Excellency our President David Granger. First, let me make it quite clear, that since I was growing up my parents have always voted PPP.  In 2011, I myself voted for the first time and I voted PPP. I did so out of fear as I listened then to the likes of Bharrat Jagdeo whose very effective propaganda machine convinced me that David Granger was a dictator.
In 2020 I voted again, but this time I voted for the APNU+AFC. I do not belong to any political party, so no one influenced my vote. I watched Guyana’s steady progress under President Granger and I was convinced that my country for the first time in my adult life was headed in the right direction. I thank God every day for Mr Granger. Over the last four-plus years he has earned my respect.
Editor, I wish to let the world know, if only the world would listen to a young Guyanese woman of Indian descent, that Mr Granger has earned my respect because of his overwhelming sense of decency and fairness towards all Guyanese, and great love of country.

Now let me address Major-General (MG) Singh. MG, I have to tell you that the language and tone of the letter attributed to you betrayed the intent of its author.  In Guyana we know  you MG Singh, and from what we know or thought we knew, you do not fit into the caricature of a simpleton who would get angry that His Excellency the President did not select him to become the GECOM chairperson, especially since you had served in that position before.  Your letter, or the letter to which you have affixed your signature, portrayed you as that simpleton. I still hope you are not the author and that you would find the courage to distance yourself from it. Certainly, the MG we knew or thought we did is educated enough to appreciate the words “fit and proper” in the context that those words were used, by His Excellency the President.  Even at my age and level of awareness, I understand that those words were never meant to be taken personally. Nor did I, or anyone else I know, up until your most recent open letter would have seen such words as a fitting description of you. The letter you signed, whether you read it or not, left you bereft of the academic savvy to recognise and appreciate the use of words in context. Let me be clear: no educated and mature individual would carry around such unforgivable anger that burns like acid in his bosom over those words for as long as you have done, according to that obvious mercury campaign letter with some of the campaign messages embedded; a despicable portrayal of you– an expose of  treacherous deception.

In that letter you are portrayed as an angry man who allowed himself to be used in a well-coordinated but evil scheme designed by foreign interests, against the President and people of Guyana. Why else would you allow yourself to be so manipulated by others who lack your standing in our society, as to make you behave as if you are incapable of understanding words in context and the complexities of our legal system.  You alluded to “the minions who are behind this conspiracy” and you advocated an uncharacteristic, dictatorial approach to have them “identified and excised like a cancerous tumour from our body politic” — how more Machiavellian can anyone become? Was that the real Joe Singh, Or his Machiavellian handlers waiting to unleash their criminal and dictatorial rule once again upon the Guyanese people?
Your expressed sarcasm, and high-level intolerance surrounding Ms Ulita Grace Moore’s access to the court, makes me question your respect and acceptance of her right of access to the court. What’s different, in this month of Lent, Self-Righteous MG Singh, between Reaz Holladar’s case, represented by Anil Nandlall and the Ulita Grace Moore case, represented by Mayo Robertson?
Why are the latter regarded as “minions behind a conspiracy” to be “excised” and NOT the former?  What is different in this month of Lent Mr Self-Righteous Joe Singh, between the decisions of Justice Navindra Singh and those of Justice Franklin Holder?
When you would have, in your silent moments, answered the questions posed above and looked at yourself in the mirror, you should bow your head in shame that you allowed yourself to be manipulated to a place where you would publicly safeguard the legal rights of one group of Guyanese and deny another group the same access.  You stand like the emperor MG; or the former angel…Fallen!
I never heard a word from you when one side of the divide approached the courts. Why do you believe now that Mr Granger who is not a dictator, and does NOT control the minds of his followers or the courts, should somehow silence a Guyanese who has an opinion different from his, yours and mine for that matter?  NOTE: I, like Mr Granger, support a recount, but I also respect everyone’s right to their own opinions and access to the courts of Guyana.  Is that not the essence of democracy? Why can’t you and your foreign mercury friends who have made you into one of their ‘minions,’ your word in context uncle Joe, not mine, accept that what’s good for one group in society has to be good for the other. Teach them Uncle Joe…teach them that in our beautiful Guyana what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander…don’t let them infuse their racist tendencies on us Guyanese through the use of your pen. I will not forgive you if you don’t distance yourself from that.

You are completely out of order to ask Mr Granger to silence, excise condignly those whose opinions differ from his. Silencing other people’s opinions is a thing done by the party I voted for in 2011. My friends in that party tell me that they wanted Anil Nandlall as their presidential candidate.

They however were forced to accept Irfaan Ali, lest they be “excised like the cancerous tumour.”  Is that the level to which you would have Mr Granger descend?  Is that what you want for Guyana? The foreigners don’t care, they want the oil…. but what do you want Uncle Joe?
You claimed in your letter, that you hold Mr Granger in high esteem as a colleague and a friend. I have to conclude that with friends like you, he’ll never have a need for enemies.
Major-General Joe Singh, are you not embarrassed to state or have stated in your name: “We, long-suffering Guyanese, fooled by the mirages of a good life, are hurting”?  In this month of Lent, tell me truthfully, who is hurting? And whose words are those?

Let this young Guyanese who voted PPP in 2011 speak for herself. The tremendous development and growth that I have witnessed in the last four years under President Granger I didn’t see in the years under the killing machine death squad regime. Mercury and you now wish to return to Guyana to interrupt the good life I have only just begun to enjoy. Where was your voice when Crum-Ewing was murdered? Where was your voice when the phantom squad roamed the land? Why were you not embarrassed and hurting and angry then? Why MG Joe Singh? Why? Why didn’t YOU want the “poisoned chalice pass” then? Why Joe Singh? Why?  I rather suspect by now that if you have a conscience you would recognise by now that you stand like the Emperor, Major-General.
Why have you allowed yourself to be manipulated into an instrument of the ongoing Mercury Public Affairs, (of Paul Manafort notoriety), campaign against the masses of Guyanese people?  Why have you made yourself into their handmaid? Where is your sense of decency and professionalism as a former senior military officer?   Why have you so disgraced yourself? What were you paid? What were you promised?
I am so disappointed that you found yourself in a conspiracy to refer to the peoples of Guyana as “dogs.” It has often been said that in times of crisis the real characters of men rise to the surface. You have exposed yourself Major-General and now you stand like the emperor.
Finally, Joe Singh, why did you let someone else script these foolish words for you, to tarnish your reputation as a gentleman with at least a modicum of intelligence. How could you in your right mind, claim as yours the words below: “I will not forgive you if you fail to do the honourable duty of calling off the dogs of war and excise them condignly” …Like seriously Joe Singh?

Have you gone insane? Do you seriously wish those words to form part of your legacy? Have you lost YOUR sense of pride?  What happened to you in this month of Lent? Did the devil tempt you?  Did that slippery devil like mercury take you to the mountain top and promised all the oil kingdoms of the world if you embraced the Mercury/Jagdeo evil design for Guyana’s oil? What happened…and finally, you know the bible, why didn’t you tell that slippery-like mercury devil to get away from you?
Why in this month of Lent, did you yield to the temptation and now you are left standing like the emperor… My grandparents and parent taught me well, “all that glitters is not gold and never take a book by its cover; sometimes those who appear to have good intentions are sometimes exposed for who they really are…the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Regards
Devina Mahadeo

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

…CCJ advises

MEMBER STATES of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), under Article 27 (4) of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) can opt out of a decision once the fundamental objectives of the Community, as laid now in the Treaty, are not negatively affected, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) said as it offered its first advisory opinion on the Freedom of Movement.

The opinion was offered by the CCJ last Wednesday, in response to a request by CARICOM Heads of Government for advice on two specific questions relating to freedom of movement within the Community.

In 2019, the Heads of Government took a decision to enlarge the list of CARICOM workers who were entitled to work freely within the Regional Bloc. That expanded list includes agricultural workers and security guards but the CARICOM Heads have acceded to requests made by the states of Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis to opt out of that decision for a period of five years.

But could a Member State lawfully opt out of such decision of the Conference? And secondly, could the principle of non-reciprocity allow nationals of any such Member State opting out to gain the benefits of the decision?

In response, the CCJ concluded that it was lawful for Antigua & Barbuda and St Kitts & Nevis to request an opt out of the obligations to accept agricultural workers and security guards as agreed by the Heads of Government. “It was also lawful for the Conference to grant the opt outs in all the circumstances. The said opt outs did not prejudice the fundamental objective of freedom of movement of skilled nationals,” the Court said in a statement.

In arriving at its conclusion, the CCJ explained that five conditions are needed for the effective implementation of an opted out.

“Firstly, one or more of the Member States must make a request to opt out of a decision as the states of St Kitts & Nevis and Antigua & Barbuda did respectively. Secondly, the decision maker must be a competent organ of the Community and here, there was no dispute that the Conference of Heads was a competent organ. Thirdly, the Conference must agree to the request of the Member State(s) to opt out of the relevant decision. It was also clear here that such an agreement was made and that the two Member States were permitted to opt out of the enlargement decision,” the CCJ summarized in a statement.

It stated too that in keeping with Article 27(4) of the RTC, the Member State opting out is entitled only to opt out of the obligations arising from the decision. Importantly, it said an opt out is permitted only if the “fundamental objectives” of the Community, as laid down in the RTC, are not prejudiced or undermined by the opt out, and in the cases of St Kitts and Nevis and Antigua and Barbuda, there was no fundamental breach of the objects of the RTC.

While the Court determined that freedom of movement was a fundamental objective of CARICOM, it also considered the facts that the opt out was made available to two Member States, each of which is categorised as a less developed country; and secondly, the duration of the opt out in each case was temporary.

Notably, the opted out related only to two categories of skilled nationals – agricultural workers and security guards.

In response to the second question, the Court said the opt-out mechanism ought to be treated as being non-reciprocal in character, and as such the principle of non-reciprocity applies to enlargement decisions. In other words, it means that nationals of Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis, who are security guards and agricultural workers, are entitled to enjoy the benefits of the enlargement decision.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020

By Clifford Stanley

ARSONISTS caused a roadside butcher shop at Bush Lot Village, West Coast Berbice, in Region Five, (Mahaica/Berbice) to go up in flames on Friday night last.

The butcher shop was owned by People’s National Congress member, Latchmin Azeez, and the arsonists are suspected to be activists of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic.

Mrs Azeez counted her losses, which include butcher shop tools such as knives, cutlasses, hand saws and weights and scales, to be over $120,000.

Mrs Azeez was pleased to say that since the blaze she had been visited by top PNC officials including Minister Amna Ally and she had been assured of her party’s assistance in rebuilding a new butcher shop.

Mrs. Azeez said that during the elections campaign and in the aftermath of the elections, her family had been under constant threats from PPP/C activists in the village which the PPP/C considers to be its stronghold.

She lives some distance away from the butcher shop and she related that it had been damaged and defaced on two occasions prior by persons suspected to be PPP/C activists.
She said she was at home when the Police visited her around midnight Friday night and told her about the fire at her butcher shop.

The blaze was extinguished by the Guyana Fire Service at Onverwagt, WCB, less than a mile away.

Regional Executive Officer, Ovid Morrison, in an invited comment, expressed disgust at the willful damage to property owned by the Azeez family in Bush Lot.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-22-2020