THERE comes a time when we must speak up and expose those who are attempting to seize power by undemocratic means. We note that one prominent Guyanese after another have allowed their names to be associated with the unfounded charge that GECOM is involved with rigging the March 2 elections. This narrative has also been sold to some international organisations, some of which were invited by the government as observers. Resident representatives of powerful countries have also been enlisted in what is nothing short of a conspiracy aimed at influencing the outcome of the elections. A spade must be called a spade: Guyana is under siege, as a result of a great conspiracy hatched and orchestrated by the PPP.

Anyone who visits our country would note that except for the adjustments resulting from the fight against the dreaded COVID-19 pandemic, Guyana is as stable as any other country in the world. Despite attempts to cause hysteria, our institutions are functioning, and government continues to discharge its responsibilities to the Guyanese people. There are no riots on the streets, even though the PPP has tried to provoke violence among the people. Despite messages to the contrary, the rule of law is alive and well.

The true story about Guyana is not being told to those who are being petitioned to intervene in the so- called “crisis” in Guyana. This crisis is being manufactured by the PPP which, having brought Guyana to its knees during its more than two decades of authoritarian rule and ethnic domination, is now trying to return to power by questionable means. Anyone familiar with Guyanese politics in recent decades would know that the PPP has hidden behind the mask of democracy to inflict the most undemocratic form of governance in post-colonial Guyana. Indeed, some who are now allowing themselves to be used as surrogates for the PPP are on record as deploring the sordid governance of that party.

Those who have eyes to see should see and those who are honest should be guided by the evidence before our eyes. Even before a single vote was cast at the March 2 elections, the PPP made it abundantly clear that it intended to utilise every trick in the book to satisfy its lust for power. Stung by the loss of its customary parliamentary majority in 2011 and the eventual loss of the presidency in 2015, the party vowed to recapture the seat of power by any means necessary, including unsavoury means.

The refusal to graciously accept defeat in 2015 was a harbinger of things to come. Those who are honest enough to remember would recall the ludicrous charge that foreign agents, some of whom are now allowing themselves to be played, colluded with the coalition to boot the PPP from power. The opposition PPP since then has taken an anti-national stance by undermining every single initiative introduced by the government. Worse, it sought to appeal to the ethnic insecurity of half of the population by inventing stories of ethnic cleansing and characterising the government’s reform of the sugar industry as ethnic attack. Never before has Guyana witnessed such an unpatriotic opposition. Their intention was clear—the government must be overthrown at any cost.

The conspiracy heightened with the enlisting of a government backbencher in a parliamentary coup triggered by an opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion.

The plan was to force early elections with a bloated voters’ list to which the PPP had attached its rigging machinery. Even after the CCJ ruled that the constitutional timeline arising from a no-confidence vote should be married to GECOM’s readiness to hold elections, the PPP continued to bulldoze its way . It eventually succeeded in getting GECOM to halt its house-to-house registration aimed at cleansing the list. This meant that Guyana went into an election with the most bloated list in its history.

There is credible evidence that the PPP used this bloated list to great advantage as it went on a rampage on polling day. When two of its members were caught in the act at Mon Repos, a mini riot broke out. The observers treated this incident as an anomaly, but it was in effect more the rule than the exception in PPP- controlled communities. It is now well established that the PPP engaged in wholesale rigging on election day like we have never witnessed before. They are now terrified that such actions would come to light if there is a transparent recount of the votes in all 10 administrative regions. When it became clear that despite the widespread rigging by the PPP the coalition still managed to prevail, panic set in. The party and its agents sought to derail GECOM’s counting of the votes in Region Four by storming the building in a military-style take over. It then called out its supporters to the streets with clear instructions to engage in wanton violence against perceived supporters of the coalition. These demonstrations were aimed at preventing the electoral process from continuing.

It simultaneously moved to the courts to frustrate the process while it bought time to “alert” the rest of the world to a non-existent crisis in Guyana. The truth is that GECOM has been long ready to announce the results of the elections, but this has been delayed by the PPP whose frivolous court actions have invariably brought counter-actions by supporters of the government. Despite stories of the coalition’s unwillingness to have a recount of the ballots, the evidence is clear for all to see. From the president to the constituent parties of the coalition, there have been unambiguous calls for a recount. But obviously such a recount has to fall within the ambit of the law. The PPP cannot want it both ways. It cannot move to the courts while trying to avoid the logic of judicial review. But then again, conspirators don’t always cover all their bases.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_4-5-2020

Dear Editor

THERE is a court matter engaging the attention of the Appeal Court that will determine whether the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) can proceed with a national recount. It is therefore unusual, if not disdainful to the Appellate Court for GECOM to make any decision with regard to a recount as reported by legal counsel Kim Kyte-Thomas –-attorney representing GECOM Chairperson Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh. Further, Kyte’s statement goes on to say, “…however, the execution of that decision and the process will not commence before Sunday,” suggesting in that statement that even though there is a wait to recount, said will not be hindered by any ruling made by the Appellate Court.

Whereas we can assume the language was misused and unfortunate, in our current environment there are internal and external forces demonstrating intolerance for legal rights to pursue justice in a court of law and making statements that show contempt for the judicial process and decisions. Such statements amplify our concerns for law and order in Guyana and for credible resolution of the elections, consistent with said laws.

Our decent law-abiding citizens expect nothing less than lawful decision-making and guidance from the Chairperson of GECOM, who spent years in the judiciary and has had an exemplary track record as far as the public is aware. From the arguments before the court, Justice Dawn Gregory Barnes reportedly noted concerns, “that its [the court’s] decision may be rendered merely academic if statements put before the courts are “accurate.” GECOM and more importantly Justice Claudette Singh should not be in such a situation, regardless of the outcome of the court’s ruling.

We are treading on dangerous waters, influenced by forces undermining our Judicial branch of government to shape a new ‘truth’ and ‘new order’ in our society; one that is dependent on their views and vision of what must be. These are not premised on universal principles and the rule of law; they have no respect for sovereign rights and democracy.  Yet they pay lip service to these gold-star principles, speaking with various tongues and language that do not fool all the people all the time.

I have no doubt that the majority of Guyanese can live in love and harmony with each other. I have no doubt that the majority of us enjoy the culture of each other for we have lived together long enough to be acculturated. We are divided by political forces seeking the control of power. We are divided by lies and myths, by nurtured hate and recently by paid lobbyists taking advantage of our fears.

Every society has fears and concerns manifested by different groups and subcultures. These may be religious, ethnic, economic or even the most insignificant and unthinkable things within cultures.  It takes leadership with vision to recognise and address these, to bring a people together to harness their strengths for mutual benefits. Those who shout the loudest about democracy must respect our laws, for they are the pillars upon which democracy stands.

U.S. Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch recently reassured Guyanese of the USA’s well-kept secret of “impartiality.” Like most Guyanese I am pleased to hear this.  I am sure we also took note of the reference to the USA government’s comments on Venezuela’s elections.

And whereas I fully appreciate the comparison, this opportunity is taken to remind Ambassador Lynch that as much as the viewpoints of external forces are welcomed, these should not take precedence over our courts. These should not set out to become diktat by which we operate. It is not so in the USA or any of the western democracies.

Why must it be so in Guyana where the courts are credible, and our justice system has been appealed to by representatives of both major parties?  Can I as a Guyanese call on the US Ambassador to help this young developing nation abide by the decisions handed down by the court of law, regardless of where the chips fall? That in my opinion would be a demonstration of “good diplomacy.” That is diplomacy that operates within a legal framework and which encourages growth and respect for law and order. That is the diplomacy of impartiality that we are asking for.

We ask the same of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and all others who claim to have Guyana’s best interest at heart even as their words could be seen as undermining our efforts, our courts and judicial system.  Ambassador Lynch also stated, “…democracy, or rule by the people, is almost always noisy.”  Guyanese may be inclined to ask, “What is different about Guyana’s noise in a growing democracy that translates to us being subjected to foreign and local interests seeking to circumvent our courts?”

An environment of deceit impacting law and order. These are no doubt the conditions influencing GECOM and Justice Claudette Singh as Guyana attempts to navigate this election impasse.

Regards
Lincoln Lewis

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_4-5-2020

Dear Editor,

THE U.S. Ambassador to Guyana must really underestimate the intelligence of the Guyanese people, or maybe we are part of the pack of sh..hole countries that her master referred to. What else would empower her to issue the ridiculous press statement justifying her intrusive behaviour that flew in the face of all diplomatic norms. Of course, the media that are on the warpath against the APNU+AFC had a field day with the goodly ambassador’s words. I will point to two statements Madam Ambassador made that makes absolutely no sense and points to their duplicity and inconsistent moral behaviour.

To quote the ambassador directly, she states, “The international extension of these principles is present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.  Article 21 underscores that, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”  It makes clear that the “will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Then please explain Madam Ambassador why the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has never had an election, and denies basic human rights to a major section of its population– women? Why was this principle not adopted in the 1992 and 1997 electoral processes when there were gross violations of democratic norms? Please explain why the United States isn’t applying sanctions to Saudi Arabia who is bombing innocent women and children in Yemen so that they can get the government they want into power? Why in 1994 did the United States support the rebels that ousted the popularly elected President of Haiti Jean Bertrand Aristide who was the popularly elected President of Haiti? Closer to home, Madam Ambassador, please explain how the Guyana elections and the judicial process in Guyana are in conflict with the norms of democratic values? I made these points and highlighted examples to underscore the point that economic interests drive your actions under the guise of so-called democratic principles and values. The contradiction of your own actions and statements cause the fair-minded observer to question your own credibility.

The ambassador justifies their interference by pointing to the fact that Guyana joined the Lima group in condemning Nicolas Maduro as an illegitimate leader of Venezuela. Guyana’s action went against CARICOM and the United Nations charter of non-interference and non-intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations. Guyana’s foreign policy action was wrong as is yours’s right now. No country should try to intimidate independent institutions of a sovereign state the way you want to dictate how our elections should be managed. The only true point you made was that Guyana is no Venezuela. Venezuela’s election was boycotted by the opposition, the process controlled by the government and was not subject to multiple layers of judicial review. Guyana’s election was as open and transparent as they come.

So, Madam Ambassador, you do not need to use those false platitudes to justify your ludicrous behaviour; after all, you have the power of guns, bombs, and devastating economic sanctions, and Guyana is just another sh..hole country.

Yours truly,
Jerrick Rutherford

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_4-5-2020

PREDICTABLY, the PPP has cried foul even before the first ballot box of the imminent recount of the votes of the March 2 election is opened. They have threatened to move to the courts yet again, but worse, they have now decided to swear in Irfan Alli as the next president of Guyana if the recount does not lead to an outcome favourable to them. If anyone doubted those who raised the alarm about the nefarious intentions of that party, then the pronouncements referenced above should remove those doubts. The PPP is up to no good; it is hell bent on keeping Guyana in a perpetual state of uncertainty and possible instability until it bullies its way into office.

But there comes a time when principle and the interest of all of the country have to take precedence over narrow and dangerous partisan posturing. That the PPP is now turning its back on the recount it previously championed should not deter GECOM from discharging its responsibilities under the law. The count must proceed without much delay. The CARICOM scrutineers have arrived and GECOM has put most of the arrangements in place for the process to begin. To our CARICOM partners, we say thanks and welcome.

The PPP is angry that it did not get to impose its own rules on GECOM. As we have noted in the past, Mr. Jagdeo and company want to be player, umpire, and jury. Nowhere in the world is that allowed to happen. The law is clear on GECOM’s role and the courts have said equally clearly that that body cannot outsource its constitutional mandate. So, let us get on with the people’s business and relieve Guyana of the uncertainty which the PPP is intent on indefinitely prolonging.

This publication is satisfied that GECOM has put in place the most transparent mechanism to guide the recount. We have said all along that a credible recount must address, in a comprehensive manner, the charges raised by the PPP, the Coalition, and the other political parties. The preference of the PPP to isolate its concerns in Region 4 and ignore the other regions is simply ridiculous. The PPP is not the only contestant. It is undemocratic and downright wrong to have a recount which caters only to the concerns of one party. GECOM has a responsibility to all electors and parties and to the society at large.

Towards that end, we endorse the checklist that GECOM proposes to use. It captures the transparency of the process and should satisfy all stakeholders that GECOM is going the extra mile to ensure the exercise is above board. It is our considered opinion that a matter of this importance should sacrifice expediency for integrity. We find it most inconsistent that forces which are charging GECOM with fraud are simultaneously calling for the process to be recklessly expedited and truncated.

The PPP not only wants a truncated recount as far as the regions are concerned, but also are unhappy with a thorough verification of each ballot. For example, Jagdeo has registered his party’s objection to an examination of the counterfoils. He contends that that would compromise the secrecy of the electoral process and as such is against the law. While he points out that there could be inconsistencies between the number of counterfoils and the number of votes cast, he is prepared to leave that unexamined. The question, as always, is why the reluctance to examine clear areas of potential fraud?

The other inconsistency in Jagdeo’s reasoning relates to his assertion that examining the counterfoils is akin to violating the secrecy of the ballot. This is the person who is nevertheless calling for televising the recount. Isn’t that even more an intrusion into the secrecy of the ballot. The PPP is clearly not interested in consistency. This publication takes a strong position against televising the recount. To do so is to set a precedent that would in the long run be difficult to disentangle from.

Finally, we stand firmly with GECOM in its refusal to discard the existing declarations from the ten regions. It is not just a commonsense decision, but one that is grounded in law. Whatever one may think about the accuracy of those declarations, they are thus far official declarations which have not been struck down by the courts. Commissioner Alexander’s reasoning in that regard is spot on. Let us go through the recount and see what it throws up, before tampering with those declarations. In the end, it is GECOM’s call subject to the law and the constitution. To the PPP, we say your slip is showing.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020

– calls out PPP/C for delay tactics

THE total recount of votes cast in the March 2nd General and Regional Elections must proceed without interruptions. This is the contention of Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson.

Speaking with the media outside the Arthur Chung Convention Centre (ACCC) on Saturday, Minister Patterson was adamant that the APNU+AFC coalition is in full support of the national recount in the format laid out by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
“We would like to see it completed. We would like to hear the results declared,” Minister Patterson emphasised.

The minister further called out attempts by the main opposition party the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) – to derail the recount that is designed to ensure the credible completion of the electoral process.

According to Minister Patterson, some of these attempts include objections to the examination of lists for each polling station that contains persons who voted on March 2.
Minister Patterson also noted that live-streaming of the recount is another issue thrust into the forefront by the PPP/C and later supported by the small parties. While commending GECOM for agreeing to broadcast the opening of ballot boxes, the minister said live-streaming as a means to resolve conflict is counterproductive.

A CARICOM team of observers arrived in Guyana on Friday to observe the recount. GECOM expects the process to take approximately 25 days. The recount, GECOM announced on Sunday, will commence on Wednesday (May 6). (DPI)

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020

Dear Editor
IT has been contended in your column, in so many letters, that the 23 years of the PPP/C ‘s regime governance has resulted in a new morality. The passage of time has indeed proven such a contention correct, because of the plethora of evidence that have been continuously underlining this view.

There is a new meaning of wrong as against what is right, and this has been because of the unchecked advancement of corruption and other venalities that had become the new barometer for acquisition of both personal gain and material gratification, in which it mattered not the route towards possession, once its goal had been achieved. What this created was a category of the nouveau riche, whereby its new members, conscious of the social status and power which their newly acquired wealth accorded them, and the patronage and protection under which they sheltered, flaunted their untouchable status, even before the eyes of the law, who would have felt helpless in bringing criminal charges against them, due to complaints filed. The law had been aware of the powerful political connections which this class had, thus placing them beyond their reach.

One will recall all those voices that had once spoke out against this parasitical collective and their lecherous deeds; not so many, to be precise, as those who recently crawled out from their woodwork with hypocritical voices that seek to condemn a President who has led by all moral examples, and his coalition government which governance has sought to introduce an entirely new understanding of respect for the law; upholding of human rights, and respect for the constitutional organ of the state, such as the autonomy and the right of GECOM to administrate the holding of free, fair and transparent elections, without the interference of the Executive. The daily attacks on this critical organ of state by the political opposition and its clique of political carnivores, supported by the shocking silence of the supposed elders of conscience, but who have been finally exposed as nothing but a bunch of full-time hypocrites, will be the political topic for years to come.

For a section of this country not to be outright in condemning acts of politically immoral behaviour, moreover, seeking shelter behind the facilitating veneer of their political party, cannot bode well for the often demanded moral behaviour, so often demanded and expected of the nation’s young people. It makes no good sense, a grave contradiction for any child to be aware that his/her parent is becoming enriched by illegal means, stealing; but then listens to the news/read in the papers that a citizen, a low-down dangerous snatcher, as far as that youngster is concerned, is sent to jail for the offence, which pales in scope to what he/she is aware is being carried out by a parent. If this is the new moral norm, then those guilty of such criminal indecencies are guilty of undermining the future spiritual and moral development of the very young, while concomitantly distorting their understanding of being citizens, in its true sense.

It is a shame, in every way a serious degradation of the standard of a political party’s choice of a presidential candidate, that had been selected as nominee, really a puppet, for the nation’s highest office, despite being before the court for 19 criminal charges, and whose academic certification is as cloudy and questionable, because of the contradictions that have arisen about their origins. It does not become any better, when our mainstream diplomatic community has struck up a more than cosy relationship with such a candidate. Notable has been the absence of those very so-called conscientious citizens, none of whose voices had ever been raised in protestation over the scandal of the PPP/C presidential nominee and his “Uitvlugt University” certification. But it is interesting to note that one of them spoke about the president having a last chance to ‘’redeem himself’’.

All that the president insisted on, as he still would do, is for GECOM to do its constitutional duty. How convenient that this particular Guyanese to not remember, as well as the others, to give such a ‘’last chance for redemption’’ advice to a political party candidate, for him to produce his academic credentials. Obviously, a case that reeks of kith-and-kin politics, but which also poses very grave negatives/consequences for the question of personal integrity and propriety. Can such persons ever be concerned about a nation rising above immoral behaviour, irrespective of the race of the person involved? Let them search their consciences, if they have any.

Let me remind the eminent lady representative of the United States, a traditional friend of Guyana. Some moons ago, the Bharrat Jagdeo administration was informed by the then government of the US that it was not going to support his appointment of the late Henry Greene, as Commissioner of Police, whom he went on to appoint. The latter reason was – that the long-departed commissioner had allegedly benefitted from the proceeds of drug trafficking. His visas were also withdrawn, standard procedure for those blacklisted for such reasons by the US. Now, for the sake of argument, Greene was never charged for such an offence, but given the all-seeing reach of US intelligence sources they had such information. It is only fair that one should ask, why the cosy, cosy treatment of the PPP/C presidential nominee? Is this the new norm of diplomatic conduct, as governs the US treatment of a candidate of such a tainted background, who vies for the highest office of his/her country? At least Canada has made him persona non grata.

Editor, such an example has given impetus to the further perception in this country that it is the new morality as far as any citizen is concerned, that may wish to vie for such high office with such a shady background. Simply put, it cannot, and does not, assist in any way, a country that has been doing its best to re-direct a new trajectory of moral decency and personal integrity for any holder or would be holder of any level of state office, after such desultory examples of the past.
Regards
Aditya Panday

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020

…GECOM chair agrees to live stream, after initially deeming it illegal
…order to be gazetted today

SHOULD plans remain on track, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) will commence the long-awaited national recount process on Wednesday with an order, expected today, to solidify the process.

This was one of the main decisions coming out of an extremely heated meeting, at the Commission’s Cowan and High Streets office, on Sunday.

The meeting was particularly heated, as members of the media, from their position on the pavement, could hear loud screams emanating from the building, as the Commissioners engaged in a verbal battle on the issue of live streaming the recount. “Transparency! Transparency!” one Commissioner shouted while another argued that no one should “hide behind the law.”

Coming out of the meeting, a much more composed Commissioner, Sase Gunraj said: “We intend to gazette the Order tomorrow, after some very minor changes which we will do tomorrow morning, and we’re looking at a start date of the recount process to be Wednesday, May 6, 2020.”

The minor changes include matters in relation to the CARICOM team and a decision to go ahead with live streaming, the latter which drew ‘the heat’ of the discussions.

LIVE STREAMING

On Sunday, according to Gunraj, GECOM’s Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, decided that the entire tabulation exercise will be live videoed and audio streamed and the entire counting process will be audio streamed.

He said that Justice Singh placed the matter up for discussion, again, as she had reservations about the persons behind the conduct of the proposed live stream. The Commission is expected to finalise these changes within the Order, at the meeting today.

“Live streaming will inject the necessary credibility and transparency in this process,” Gunraj submitted, while adding that “GECOM has nothing and ought to have nothing to hide in this process, and, as a consequence, that is something that we should focus on.”

Gunraj believes that due to the availability of technology here in Guyana, live streaming should not be a major technical issue.

However, Commissioner Vincent Alexander has questioned the effectiveness of live streaming the procedure to the public as there is no provision for the public to object or intervene should there be a disagreement with the processes.

He is also displeased that Opposition-nominated Commissioners have quoted Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act to justify GECOM’s flexibility to facilitate a live stream, but ignored the provisions altogether, when it comes to the Commission’s intention to conduct more than a numerical count.

“There is no provision for streaming in any of the legislation so if we talk about streaming we can only go to 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 [of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act] that gives us latitude. But, at the same time, those who are trying to use that latitude are seeking to object for the use of that latitude for other things,” he said.

Alexander further added: “You want to take away that latitude when it comes to how we conduct the count. My question is, if you’re transparent, what is it you want to hide in relation to matters such as taking the List, which was used at the place of poll…to determine how many persons turned up to vote and then to check the actual ballots to see if there is a correlation.”

Alexander said that, apart from the live stream, the GECOM Chair indicated that a clear photo should be taken of the ballot boxes, upon their removal from the containers, for record, and to rule out any claims of tampering. She also would prefer that there be an audio broadcast of the counting process.

Though Alexander does not know how such an audio broadcast would take place with multiple counting stations to be present, he explained the possible reason behind Singh’s thinking.

“The Chairperson is very, very conscious of what is taking place in the media -the electronic media, the print media, and, probably, moreso, on social media. Therefore, she is trying to respond by lowering that tempo of aggression — much of which is directed to her — by doing these things,” he said.

SCRUTINIZING TEAM

As it relates to the CARICOM team, Alexander said that the individuals will no longer be described as a “high-level team” but a CARICOM “scrutinizing team” which is still separate and apart from observers.

Unlike observers, during the course of the process, they can express opinions or be asked to express opinions by the District Coordinators, the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) or the Commission. At the level of the work stations, they may only seek clarification.

The scrutinizing team is also expected to provide a report on its observations following the recount.

Should a conflict arise and a resolution does not come from the Supervisors, there is a hierarchy for conflict resolution continuing on to the District Coordinator, CEO and finally the Commission.

Meanwhile, the Chair did not budge on some matters, such as the objection of the Opposition to the opening of the envelopes to determine whether there were errors by the Presiding Officers (POs) during the election tabulation process.

When it comes to the involvement of local and international observers, this was not largely debated by Commissioners as it was agreed that their initial status stands and they remain invited to the process.

“The elections process has not ended, so the issue of re-inviting observers does not arise. What will happen is a reminder or statement will go out there to say that the observers remain engaged and remain invited to the process to observe as is necessary,” Gunraj said.

He added that, thus far, the Carter Center and the International Republican Institute (IRI) have indicated their interest in sending representatives to Guyana.

Before the recount date, local and international observers, as well as party representatives, will be briefed by the CEO on the guidelines of participation in the process.

While there is an ongoing discussion about whether the Carter Center was denied entry into the country, Alexander said that he has heard two separate accounts of the matter, and, either way, their entry into the country is a matter for the National COVID-19 Task Force (NCTF).

Although Gunraj described the meeting as long, tiring and vociferous with “rank disagreement”, Alexander said that he was confident that everything was set for the recount to begin as planned but he could not speak to ulterior motives.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020

Dear editor,
I DO recognise that our Guardians and Champions of Democracy are only awake when they serve to peddle the have PPP’s narrative of misinformation. I also do recognise that the failed de facto leader of that group, the failed academic, the failed column writer, the failed political analyst, the failed Phd student and the failed researcher Freddie Kissoon may conveniently develop political myopia when it comes to this important and pertinent issue that I’m about to share, hence I would humbly ask that one of his “democrats “share same with the perennial and failed Mingo basher, once his political eyes have been reopened .

Mr. Editor, the PPP were bawling like bereaved relatives of a deceased, when they discovered that it was five more years and likely longer, in opposition for them. They employed adjectives such as rigged, fraud and cheated among other similar-meaning literary tools. They maligned everyone, including the Gods. The GECOM Chairperson endured daily public derogatory name calling and misogynistic attacks. President Granger, Clairmont Mingo, Keith Lowenfield and Roxanne Myers had to endure daily public racist innuendos-laced verbal and written attacks. They painted themselves as whiter than white. They demanded a recount. They got their recount. And now this.

Anil Nandlall, one of the many PPP members rightly facing criminal charges, desperately made these utterance at the ACCC on Saturday with reference to the recount, “Why are you expanding the scope of the process [to] check off things like the List of Electors who were ticked [off] by the presiding officers? What is the purpose of that? Why are you going to open envelopes of unused ballots and count it?”
Further Nandlall said this,

“Why are we running in a collision course with the law? Why not recount the ballots, isn’t that what we are asking for, a recount of the ballots cast by the electorate? Why are we going to examine the whole process of elections? You are bound to find irregularities. That to me is creating a platform for unnecessary queries to be raised because we are embarking on a scope of a process that is so wide that it was never intended. We asked for a recount. GECOM agreed to a recount. The President and Jagdeo agreed to a recount.

Why are we doing all these things, to create platforms for queries to be made, for objections to be made, to derail the process to the end.” Finally, Nandlall then shockingly admitted that there may have been, “errand (sic) or delinquent” presiding officers who may not have accurately ticked off the names of persons who voted and as such give rise to discrepancies.

Mr. Editor, these are the words of PPP chief legal adviser, a man who is likely to have chosen his words carefully. The fact is, I have longed concluded that the PPP were trying to avoid entering those ballot boxes as if within them was the smallpox virus. First after agreeing to a chronological recount of 1-10 they reneged and demanded only Region Four be recounted. They once again reneged and now made the irrational demand of all regions, but illogically starting from Region Four.Then they turned to rushing through the process in 10 days, to minimise contact with their feared smallpox virus. Then they changed to 14 days.

In effect, they were all over the place like scattered rice which is a reflection of the scattered brain and scattered attempt at rigging. Now they wish to place the blame on an errand(sic) presiding officer.

To begin, the poor chap, in his state of despair, can’t even get his errant and errand right. For surely, I would not expect these presiding officers to be running errands when there was a serious business of election to conduct. This errant not errand hypothesis may be true, but what if the errant not errand presiding officers are mostly associated with the PPP and attributing more votes to them than they actually got? What about if the errant not errand presiding officers, who inaccurately ticked off the wrong names, are mostly aligned to the PPP? What if these inaccurate ticking of names have a much higher incidence than that expected from human error? Surely, the aforementioned cannot be attributed to a rogue presiding officer. Surely this cannot be viewed as an isolated event but rather systemic which could have influenced the outcome of the elections. The fact is that none of us know if such incidents, if they ever actually arise during the recount are isolated or systemic. As a result, applying Murphy’s law, GECOM should enter those boxes prepared for the worse ie that is incidents are systemic.

Then Nandlall is arguing for a numeral recount. Putting aside the allegations of fraud that the PPP alleges, it is clear that a recount simply means a repeat of a count. Since amalgamating the words “repeat” and “count” would be linguistically and aesthetically unattractive the prefix “re” derived from repeat is used hence the word recount. As a result, from basic semantics a recount has to include or retrace the steps taken during the initial count. Hence , it is illogical and nonsensical to argue or believe that it should simply be a numerical recount, since the initial count was not only numerical.

In concluding, It is now abundantly clear that the PPP never wanted this recount albeit, a numerical count which would have kept their skeletons in those ballot boxes were their preference. The fact is that the PPP has done much damage to Guyana on the international stage. They have brought GECOM into disrepute. Now the Mercury- free repair process has begun. Now the recount is about to begin. PPP, this is your last chance to come clean with the electorate that you had rigged the elections. Try striking a plea deal with the electorate, when they may be amenable to it. Once those boxes are opened, plea-dealing is off the table and the political penalty will be very severe.
Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020

THE Carter Center Observer Group, in a last minute attempt, is seeking permission from the authorities to fly one of its representatives from the United States to Guyana to observe the national recount.

With the national recount of the votes cast at the March 2, 2020 regional and general elections set to commence on Wednesday, the group’s request is being championed by the United States Embassy.

The US Embassy noted on Sunday that it made a request for a flight to bring in its members and other persons from another observer group. It said it was still awaiting permission for the persons to travel, although permission was given for the flight.
The Private Sector Commission (PSC), in a statement, called for the observer group to be allowed to observe the process.

“As the body constitutionally responsible for supervising elections and the power to ensure fairness in the process, GECOM must ensure that the process is completed transparently and fairly and deliver results considered as credible by all fair minded,” the Gerry Gouveia-led PSC said.

It said is the duty of both President David Granger and the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to facilitate the early return of the foreign observers by issuing such instructions and directions as are necessary.

The Carter Center group departed Guyana late in March, some three weeks after the regional and general elections.

It assured at the time that it remains committed to observing and supporting Constitutional reform of the electoral process here in Guyana.
The center announced prior to departing that its decision was made in light of the absence of an electoral process, increasing restrictions on international travel because of COVID-19 and the decline in the security environment in Guyana.

The team said the decision to leave was a “difficult” one and gave all assurances that its future assistance was still available.

It lamented that Guyana’s electoral process began well with polls on March 2 but was marred with the tabulation of Region Four’s results which would be the ultimate determination for which party won the elections.

The center also acknowledged the “chaotic” environment of the Office of the Region’s Returning Officer (RO) during the tabulation, noting that efforts were made by “the large number of persons present and the efforts by PPP/C representatives and others to disrupt the declaration of results”.

Over 40 observers, representing 15 countries, had travelled to Guyana to observe the electoral process. The delegation was co-led by Aminata Touré, former Prime Minister of Senegal; and Jason J. Carter, Chairperson of The Carter Center’s Board of Trustees.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020

GUYANESE are up in arms against statements made by Canadian High Commissioner, Lillian Chatterjee, labelling court decisions here as frivolous and some are even questioning her country’s involvement in facilitating the transportation of a team of Caricom officials to observe the national recount.

It is not the first time the Canadian envoy has invoked the ire of Guyanese. Recently, she was cited by commissioners of GECOM for barging into their meeting uninvited.
In an interview with the media back in March, Commissioners Desmond Trotman and Vincent Alexander detailed the events which halted a previous meeting of the commission at GECOM’s Command Centre at High and Hadfield Streets.

Their account reports Chatterjee as barging into the meeting unannounced and directing that the commission act based on her judgement. “The Canadian High Commissioner barged into the meeting unannounced. Presumably, she came in there to impose her will on the meeting,” Commissioner Trotman told the media.

He added: “[She was] barging into the room as if she was the new ruler of the land.”
The incident took place while there was much commotion downstairs in the building where political leaders, primarily the opposition, were objecting to the process taken up by the region’s RO, Clairmont Mingo, to tabulate total votes of the region.

Alexander said: “I think she was intervening in the announcement being made by the returning officer and she was running in the room telling us what we should do with relation to what was happening outside.” On March 13, Chatterjee, along with foreign diplomats from the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) walked out of the centre, as they felt the resumed tabulation process, following court orders, was still not transparent. They subsequently released a joint statement advising that GECOM do everything to ensure that “a credible process is followed.”

Interference
In the aftermath of the March 2, 2020 elections, calls came from many quarters for the declaration process to be transparently concluded, citing irregularities tantamount to vote rigging, especially regarding Electoral District Four.

Following weeks of delays stemming from a number of High Court challenges to the process, the way was eventually cleared for a recount of the declarations of district Four. However, talks between President David Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, brokered by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley, resulted in a commitment for the recount of all votes cast for each of the ten electoral districts.

A CARICOM team is currently in Guyana to observe the recount process which is set to begin as soon as the Order is gazetted. In the latter days of March 2020, Prime Minister and political stalwart, Moses Nagamootoo made the point that Guyana remains a sovereign state. PM Nagamootoo wrote that interference in Guyana’s 2020 General and Regional Elections warrants an inquiry, noting the continuous threats of sanctions based on personal interpretation, as opposed to legal interpretation of Guyana’s current situation.

He said these threats come at a time when the government has not acted, or insinuated, that it has intention to act, outside of the law and Constitution. United States Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo, has been making a number of statements and tweets about the need for Guyana’s elections to be transparently concluded, ‘or else’.

In a joint statement on March 13, 2020, the Ambassador of the United States of America, H.E. Sarah-Ann Lynch; the British High Commissioner, H.E. Greg Quinn; the Canadian High Commissioner, H.E. Lilian Chaterjee; and the Ambassador of the European Union, H.E. Fernando Ponz Canto, announced that they had left the Region 4 tabulation process that morning “as it was clear that a transparent and credible process was not put in place by the responsible officials.”

They also announced having concerns about “intimidation tactics we observed against those seeking to ensure that a credible process is followed.”
“We must be clear that in the absence of a credible process, as directed by the Honorable Chief Justice, it is our view that any results for Region Four, which will impact the overall results of the March 2 elections, will not be credible and a President sworn in on the basis of those results will not be considered legitimate. We are all long-standing friends of Guyana whose countries have supported its development over many decades. The betterment of Guyana and its people has always been our interest. In that spirit, we urge all parties to not do anything which could lead to Guyana’s isolation,” the joint statement said.

Intervention
Writing in a Guyana Chronicle column, Prime Minister Nagamootoo stated: “It is interesting to note the number of times that the American Deputy Secretary of State has intervened to issue threats against Guyana, even as the United States is battling its own challenges in the fight against COVID-19, as all of our countries are doing at this time. The urgency of the Guyana mission appears to take precedence.”

Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961- ‘Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State Article 55’ – states: “Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.”

This is also reinforced in Article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. A source within the Canadian government shared with the Guyana Chronicle that during an election period, this means ensuring that diplomatic and consular representatives do not conduct activities which may either be perceived as inducing electors to vote for a particular candidate, or prohibiting them from voting for a particular candidate in any way during an election period. “Furthermore, accredited foreign representatives should not, directly or indirectly, make any financial contribution to a candidate, political party or political event,” the source said.

Canadian envoy
Speaking on the situation in Canada, well-placed sources said: “With a federal election approaching, we wish to kindly remind Heads of Mission that, consistent with Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, they have the duty to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving state.

The source cited a guideline for Heads of Mission on how to direct their staff on making informed decisions about the types of engagement that may be deemed as inappropriate during an election period. “Although developed to guide the conduct of federal public servants in federal, provincial, territorial or municipal elections, the examples of non-candidacy political activities, social media and online activities, and factors to be considered before engaging in any activity are good examples for foreign representatives accredited to Canada,” the source highlighted.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_04_2020