ON day two of the national recount of the March 2, 2020 elections, the APNU+AFC were highly annoyed by an alleged secret meeting the PPP/C had in the tabulation room with the IT personnel.

APNU+AFC representative, Daniel Seeram, told the media that he was the one who witnessed that a private meeting was being had in the room.

“I was the first coalition rep to enter the room at exactly 8AM and there were GECOM staff, along with two GECOM technical personnel which were the IT supervisor and his assistant. Now what I saw at that time were the two IT officers surrounded by four PPP/C agents at the IT station. They were engaged in a meeting with four PPP/C personnel, two of which were Frank Anthony and Sasenarine Singh,” Seeram said.

He said that he asked what was being queried that they (APNU+AFC) were not a part of.

Seeram emphasised that there was no APNU or other reps present at that time.

“When I entered the room I said that I didn’t know that there was a very early morning meeting and that I wasn’t invited. They said that it’s not a meeting they’re just asking some questions. So I told the IT supervisor, that if questions are to be asked, they’re to be asked in an open manner and not by one political party alone. I came outside and I made the case clear that there was no APNU+AFC Coalition rep in the room. The IT persons did indicate the questions that were asked but I don’t think those were all the questions because when I got into the room, it got very silent when they saw my presence. Hence why I objected to what was happening. And then everyone quickly went to their seats, and they uttered no words after that,” he further explained.

Both Seeram and Minister David Patterson said that the action was highly irregular because that was the tabulation room. They said they can’t be certain that what they said they were discussing was what was actually being discussed.

PPP/C agent, Dr. Frank Anthony, came out and denied those claims, contending that it was an open query with the persons in the tabulation room.

“We have made some inquiry of the persons who are running the tabulation room, in the presence of all the observers there, asking them when these SORs will come to the tabulation room to start this process. The answer that was given to us was the CEO would have to approve when the tabulation will start this morning or what time of the day they can start. So currently we are awaiting that, and we don’t know what time this tabulation will start. Secondly, what we asked the GECOM staff that were there, yesterday there were some queries we were making during that process, and what we were asking is that, what we were querying yesterday wasn’t being broadcast. It seem that what the GECOM staff, only what they were saying was being broadcast. So what we asked is to correct that, and we are waiting on the response,” Anthony contended.

He claimed that all the parties had representatives there.

He said that their understanding of the tabulation process was that the GECOM staff would then bring to the GECOM staff in the tabulation room, their official copy of the SOR.

“Then that is displayed so that we can see and verify that that is the actual SOR and then it is also called out and tabulated. So that went on for just 6 SORs for Region One and up to now, apparently the other SORs have not come to the tabulation room,” Anthony said, claiming that that was all they were querying in the alleged ‘secret meeting’.

He also said that the meeting wasn’t a secret one and that there were about 15-20 persons in the room, including observers and the questions were asked openly.

“Every person in the room could have heard my question and the response and there were three APNU+AFC observers in the room who heard everything I said and the response that was given. And there were other party reps,” Anthony said.

A few hours after, GECOM’s PRO, Yolanda Ward, came out to the media and said she was not present at the time of the incident but based on her investigations, the GECOM IT staff were just approached with quuestions.

“I can’t understand that a space that is accessible by all party agents now becomes a private space. So that’s the first thing we need to establish. My understanding is that two of the IT staff were setting up their work area. They were approached by two agents with questions and it was from there that the whole thing spin out of proportion as being termed a ‘secret meeting’. I was not on site to have the details of what may have transpired, but based on my little investigation, that is what I garnered,” Ward said.

She later said that they had a meeting to discuss the allegation and they are still to deliberate on the matter.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_08_2020

MOMENTS after the Guyana Elections Commission indicated that the tabulation process for each electoral district will commence upon the completion of all of the Statements of Recount (SORs) in accordance with the order, it reverted on its position, thereby allowing for the tabulation to take place on a daily basis as they are submitted to the tabulation centre from the 10 workstations.

A Statement of Recount (SOR) is generated upon the completion of each ballot box, and details the result of the General and Regional Recount, according to the votes cast in an electoral block.

GECOM’s Public Relations Officer, Yolanda Ward, said that, based on a decision of the Elections Commission on Thursday, the tabulation process will commence daily at 17:00hrs until 18:30hrs. According to her, the decision was taken to tabulate the SORs daily based on recommendations made by a political party. “I don’t know what prompted the Commission to move in that direction of a decision in that regard but I am sure that the Commission in its wisdom has enough justification as to its actions,” Ward told reporters.

But the decision, she said, will not affect the order or result in an amendment. “The order will not be amended since at the end of every region, they will also go back through everything full process,” Ward told reporters moments after the Elections Commission meeting ended.

This means that as the Statements of Recount are produced at the level of the workstations, they will be submitted to the tabulation centre where they will be tabulated on a daily basis from 17:00hrs. Then, once all the SORs are completed for a given region, GECOM, in the presence of party agents and observers, will then proceed to tabulate those SORs for a second time.

According to the Order gazetted on Monday, the SORs will be tabulated at central tabulation centre upon the completion of the count at the workstations.

“The Statement of Recount shall be projected on a screen to be viewed by all persons present and the information shall be input into a matrix, which process could be viewed, simultaneously, by all persons present,” a section of the Order states. Those persons include the CARICOM scrutinizing team, representatives of political parties that contested the March 2 Elections, international and local observers and GECOM officials.

Less than an hour before Ward made the announcement based on the Commission’s decision, she had indicated that the tabulation of Statements of Recount for any given Region would commence on the completion of all of the SORs.

“Basically what the order dictates is that the tabulation exercise will be done at the end of every region, and that is what the order states,” Ward had explained. She was keen on noting that the SORs would be projected as they are being tabulated, in addition to an excel file showing the data being inputted from the SORs.

But ANUG representative, Timothy Jonas, objected to the SORs being tabulated collectively for a given region. According to him, the order allows for the SORs to be tabulated within the Central Tabulation Centre as they are completed at the level of the workstations. “It is my view that that Statement of Recount needs to be tabulated on an ongoing basis, publicly for everyone to see,” Jonas posited while emphasizing that it would lend to a transparent process. He contended that to tabulate all of the SORs at once would affect the credibility of the process.

But Ward was quick to debunk that, explaining that each step of the way representatives of the various political parties and observers are provided with copies of the SORs and the Observation Reports, and the process at that stage cannot be compromised.
Ward reminded that once a Statement of Recount is generated, it is signed by the GECOM staff present and the representatives from the various political parties present and copies are distributed to them.

But as the day progressed more issues arose with the tabulation process. Ward had indicated that while six SORs from Region One were tabulated on Wednesday, that was merely a demonstration of the tabulation exercise and not the actual tabulation, as she alluded to the order.

She noted that the demonstration was done after a party agent approached the Chair of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, asking for same to be facilitated. But People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Executive, Dr Frank Anthony, and Leader of Liberty and Justice Party (JLP), Lenox Shuman, were adamant that what took place at the Tabulation Center was the actual tabulation and not a dry run of the exercise.

“We went through a tabulation process for those six both for the General and Regional,” Dr. Anthony said. According to Dr. Anthony, it was expected that, having completed six Statements of Recount (SORs) from Region One, they would have proceeded, on Thursday, to tabulate SORs submitted from other regions. However, he said representatives from the various political parties were informed that the tabulation would be done from 17:00hrs to 18:30hrs daily.

Dr. Anthony had also complained to the press that GECOM, on Thursday, opted to have the Secretariat insert comments on the Statements of Recount but the Public Relations Officer said that such was far from the truth. Ward said what was agreed by the Elections Commission was for the Observation Report to be made public during the tabulation exercise.

“For every workstation, an observation report is generated and it was also a decision of the Elections Commission that, that observation report be presented during the tabulation process,” the GECOM PRO clarified. She made it clear that it was never GECOM’s intention to have the observations or comments inserted on the SORs as alleged by the PPP/C. “The decision of the Commission is not for observation information to be written onto the Statements of Recount. The decision of the Commission is that the observation report that is generated at the respective work stations which is attached to that Statement of Recount, be shown or the information be read to those in the tabulation centre,” Ward explained.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_08_2020

…says agents armed with immigration, death records of persons who voted

THE APNU-AFC coalition, in an organised manner, will be highlighting to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) evidence of persons who would have voted at the recent regional and general elections, but who are known to have either been deceased or migrated.

This method includes death certificates and the migration records of these individuals, documents which would serve as hard proof to the Commission, which has requested the same. For these persons in question, especially those that are still alive, the Commission has asked that the party utilise the individual’s ballot serial number instead of their names.

Coming out of the Centre on Thursday, shortly after Day Two of the recount commenced, Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson, representing the APNU/AFC said: “We have a team in the background providing all the serial numbers to our agents before the boxes are open, so that we can give them as much information as possible; we have death certificates, we have migration records, we have very reliable information.”

On Wednesday, Patterson and several others had raised the issue that there were around 15 discrepancies the party had found, the majority of which had to do with dead voters or migrant ones.

At the close of the day on Wednesday, GECOM’s Public Relations Officer Yolanda Ward told reporters said that the Commission had taken note of these concerns and, providing that there is proof to support the claims, will deliberate on how these matters will be addressed.

IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

“For us at GECOM, we have not sought any authenticity as it relates to that information, but I’m sure, now that it’s in the public domain, it is something that the Commission will have to deliberate on and provide some guidance going forward,” she had said.

Patterson’s hope on Thursday was that before the first round of ballot boxes are dealt with, the Commission would decide on how it plans to deal with the matter.

“We took their word; they said they would have a resolution to certain issues, so I don’t hope for another round of ballot boxes to be opened without us having some clear directions on what we can do and what will be allowed,” he said.

This is even as a photograph has been going the rounds on social media since Thursday of a deceased man named Emanuel Williams, who allegedly still voted at a polling station at the Karawab Primary School.

In a letter to GECOM Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, APNU+AFC Election Agent Joseph Harmon said that the party is concerned about the voting of persons purported to be electors, and that GECOM should make provision for such objections to be attended to during the recount.
“After one day of the recount, instances of the dead and electors not present in Guyana on Elections Day have surfaced. In the circumstance, we request that any information capable of sufficiently identifying the elector should be accepted by the Counting Officer,” he said.

As the Commission hopes to address the matter, Commissioner Vincent Alexander has noted that such cases are difficult to decide upon, as, while someone may have died, how the Commission identifies the said person’s vote is the question.

Even so, Patterson said that the APNU/AFC will make use of the recount as an opportunity not only to point out such anomalies, but to finally conclude on the victor of the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

The political party is also actively comparing the Statement of Record Statements of Recount (SORs) to data from the previous Statements of Poll (SOPs) to see what differences arise.

“We’re doing that right now, and we’re supposed to have a live feed some time. As I said yesterday, there are some [ballots] that would have already been moved from one side to the other side; we are comparing them with the new cleared figures,” the Minister said, adding:

“As it is, we have an opportunity for a recount so therefore we’re going through it to provide as much evidence as we can on the process and how the process transpired, how persons voted and, eventually, who was the successful winner.”

However, by the end of the day, Ward updated the media that the Commission had not yet deliberated on the matter

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_08_2020

…Coalition defends lengthy scrutiny of boxes, PPP/C disagrees
…ANUG sees exercise going beyond 25 days

FORTY ballot boxes were counted on the second day of the National Recount bringing the total number of processed ballot boxes to 65 from a total of 2,339, Public Relations Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Yolanda Ward, disclosed on Thursday.

It therefore means that 2,274 more ballot boxes are yet to be counted. At the close of operations at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre where the recount is unfolding, Ward told reporters that of the 40 boxes counted – nine were from Region One (Barima-Waini); 10 from Region Two (Pomeroon-Supenaam), nine from Region Three (Essequibo Islands-West Demerara) and 12 from Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica).
Started on time

Unlike the first day of the National Recount, in which several challenges arose resulting in a late start, Ward said, on Thursday, the recount started on time. “We had a very smooth process at the various stations,” the GECOM PRO reported, noting that the early start resulted in an increase number of ballot boxes counted.

There are a total of 10 workstations established at the Conference Centre to recount the ballots cast at the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections. In accordance with the operational plan and gazetted order, GECOM is tabulating the votes cast in Regions One, Two, Three and Four first and will proceed to count other regions upon the completion of the first three regions. Region 4 votes are being counted simultaneously due to the fact that it is the largest electoral block.

A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Agent and Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson, said the recount process was executed on Thursday with minor hiccups. “Well this morning was better organised than yesterday (Wednesday) but of course one party did not have their keys again or their locks were not working…so they had to cut the locks on the East Bank container but we started on time,” Patterson said on Thursday when approached by reporters. He noted that once the ballot boxes where moved from the containers to the workstations, the process commenced with little delay.

Smooth operations
A New and United Guyana (ANUG) Representative, Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas, also reported that the process was smoothly executed on Thursday with the exception of a few minor hiccups. “It is a slow process but from what I saw from the room that I was in, the slowness of the process was because the process was slow not because of anybody,” Jonas said. He noted that the time taken to count a single box is influenced by the number of ballots within the box. It was noted that while some voting blocks are small others have more than 250 ballots within them. Elections Commission has set a 25-day duration to execute the recount, but Jonas said, based on the rate at which the boxes are being processed, the duration may need to be extended.

“I am concerned about the 25-day original plan because if you do the Math and you have 2,200 ballot boxes, even if we get 20-30 done a day, that still cannot be done within 25 days…so we have a mathematical issue here,” Jonas noted.

PPP wants more speed
But the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Executive Member, Anil Nandlall, complained bitterly about the rate at which the boxes are being processed. “Our biggest concern remains the pace at which the process is going at. We think that it is considerably too slow. At the end of today, only 40 boxes were completed and we saw again recurrent instances of stations being closed way before the scheduled 7pm, and that is unacceptable, we can’t continue at this rate,” Nandlall told reporters but said that significant progress was being made. He alleged that APNU+AFC agents are employing delaying tactics at the workstations resulting in a slow counting process. “There are unnecessary queries being raised,” he posited while pointing to the APNU+AFC.

Important concerns being addressed
But while PPP/C agents are alleging that the process is being dragged out and stalled due to what they consider as “unnecessary” queries, Ward said it is important for all concerns to be addressed. This, she posited, will add further transparency to the process. “We are at a recount exercise and like anything else people will have queries and so it is important whatever those queries are, [they] are adequately addressed,” she told the press.

Ward underscored the Elections Commission’s commitment to transparency. “We want to ensure that every person, every agent in the room is satisfied with whatever decision is taken at a respective workstation; so it therefore means if an issue needs to be ventilated to ensure that it comes to a conclusion that is agreed to by all, it must be done,” Ward made clear.

Not unnecessary
APNU+AFC Candidate, Ganesh Mahipaul also ruled out the contention that the APNU+AFC agents had a number of “unnecessary queries.” He said the task is a lengthy one and cannot be avoided. “This process is a lengthy process. It is slow because of the reconciliation that is necessary before you go into the one two three, one two three, and because you are scanning the ballots and you have to ensure that it is stamped with the six digits number; and you have to verify that the six digit number is across on all the ballots and you have to ensure that it is the same six digit number that is across on all the ballots; and you have to make sure that you see the ‘X’ and see the ‘X’ properly,” he explained.
Mahipaul maintained that the lengthiness of the process is by no means as a result of delaying tactics employed by any of the political parties. He said the process allows for transparency and credibility in accordance with the Constitution and Electoral Laws of the country.

“We from the APNU+AFC we stand solidly for credibility, accountability, and transparency, and that is why what is happening has to happen,” the APNU+AFC Candidate said. The National Recount is being observed by the parties that contested the General and Regional Elections in addition to local and international observers including the Organisation for American States (OAS), the Canadian High Commission, the CARICOM Scrutinizing Team, the Private Sector Commission and CUFFY 250 among others. Notably, there are strict security and COVID-19 measures in place.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_08_2020

…applauds staff for professional conduct, despite disruption

LOCAL NGO, Youth Challenge Guyana (YCG), believes that it is important for the leaders of Guyana to urge their supporters to remain composed at this time while they await an official declaration of the winner of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections from the Guyana Elections Commission.

In a statement, the organization, which was one of the accredited local observer mission said: “It is our position after continuous observation, since the close of polls and commencement of counting at the Returning Office and Command Centre, that there have been activities which have heightened public insecurity and reduced public trust in the electoral systems of Guyana.”

“We wish to acknowledge that the staff of the Returning Office and Command Centre have as far as practicable, executed their roles professionally. GECOM, within its right, established the rules of engagement on the night of March 2, 2020 informing all stakeholders of the process and their roles and responsibilities which was agreed to be understood by all.”

The body said what is important to note however, is that while the staff were professional in the execution of their duties, GECOM failed to maintain the prescribed rules of engagement and allowed the counting office to become overrun by political agents and then later on the Command Centre which affected the safety for the staff and all involved. “The secretariat failed to act decisively at the first infraction of the rules and allowed a major political party to have as many as 22 representatives in the counting office.

Notwithstanding this breach, most of the political parties engaged in the counting exercise became continually disruptive to the process rather than following the required regulation to lead to the completion of the count by GECOM which, at some points, became threatening to the safety of GECOM’s staff and this further delayed the process,” Youth Challenge said.

According to the organization, one political party had as many as 25 representatives in one form or the other staging vigorous protests about the process without recognising the hindrance they had become to the process, thus the process was stalled and the secretariat became silent on the actions forward without a transparent view of the remaining counts for District Four. “Be that as it may, YCG was not able to witness a complete count of District Four following great concern for the safety of our observers. We would like to recommend that GECOM put better systems in place to complete the tabulation process and prevent future breaches of the rules by all involved.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020

Dear Editor,
THE recent organised protest activities by the opposition PPP/C and its supporters, with its lawful and unlawful methods, have not received condemnation by the array of organisations and individuals both at home and abroad who in the past had done so when Africans engaged in similar protest actions. These double standards speak volumes.
I used the opportunity to reiterate my position that people and their leadership have the right to resort to protest action to advance their interests, whether social or political. And as a political realist, I take the position that at times protest action oversteps the legal threshold and sometimes gets violent. This has been the universally human experience which is often conveniently denied by many when discussing public protest. In previous polemics on this matter, I have pointed out that often we argue for levels of human behaviour that as a society we cannot maintain, even with our best efforts and in doing so distort the political culture of the nation.

I hope that the PPP/C supporters note the restraint demonstrated by the police under the APNU+AFC administration when compared with what took place when their party was in government. I do so as a person who along with comrade Edward Collins (former GDF Chief of Staff) was shot with pellets while leading a peaceful APNU protest on Hadfield Street in 2011 in Georgetown. On another occasion in Linden, I and comrades from Georgetown had to navigate unfamiliar terrain to avoid been hit by lethal gunfire by police who were carrying out instructions of the PPP/C regime.

Unlike my detractors who at the time of African protest call on the police to uphold law and order at any cost, with my African humanity, and a survivor of African enslavement, I appeal to the APNU+AFC administration with which I am associated, and the police, to continue to show restraint in dealing with these political, organised protests. To achieve its political objectives, the PPP/C’s leadership is seeking to force the security forces into actions that will advance their cause. I suspect that Jagdeo and the PPP/C leadership, realising that they have lost the elections, have now resorted to Plan “B”: and to achieve this, they are willing to see the demise of some of their supporters.

In closing, I have no difficulties understanding the inherent logic of the PPP/C leadership’s attitude to the election results, since this election was the “mother” of elections in Guyana.

Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020

LEST we forget, the nation is being subjected to the wrath of arguably the most dangerous and venomous politico-mafia to ban ever assembled within the confines of this polit . When Bharrat Jagdeo emerged as President of tbt Republic in 1997, he skillfully  and diabolically used the Presidency to create a La Cosa nostra that spawn civil society, the business class, political parties and the streets. Those affiliated became filthy rich at the expense of the poor. It as a system where those who were in tbt clique, enjoyed a bonanza. The term limits kicked in, it continued through a proxy and it came to an end in 2015. Ever since there was a determination to ensure that there will be a return to the good old days at any cost. The no-confidence motion plan was batched and failed. The 2020 elections provided another opportunity. It was decided that power must come at all costs via these elections. 

THE PLAN

It began with the creation of numerous inorganic political movements and civil society organizations. These were created to serve as satellites and to give the appearance of a national movement months before the mother of elections. Some members of the business class were strategically placed at the helm of some key organizations. Once the elections season began, they applied for accreditation to be observers. Their feet were in the door and well ready for the mission at hand. It was decided that once the elections internal counts were in and they were not over the line, there would be hell to bear. It started at the GECOM office and spilled into the streets. It was all planned. A mad grab for power at the expense of the country.

Verification Process

The question is being asked: if the coalition won the elections, why was the “verification process suspended. The siege of GECOM produced an environment that cannot be properly grasped by pictures and videos, even though they exist in abuna dance. It is evident, the Officer could not conduct the necessary processes in an ambience fret from fear and recourse to a declaration with verification. The Representation of the People Act 1964 does mention the words ‘spreadsheets or ‘verification’. These administrative processes that have been the practice, not statute. An administrative call was made to declare based on the exigencies of the situation. The siege of GECOM killed the chances for complete verification.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020

Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) (Cap1:03) states that-
“(1) As soon as practicable after the receipt of all the ballot boxes and the envelopes and packets delivered to him in pursuance of section 83 (10), the Returning Officer shall, in the presence of such of the persons entitled under section 86 (1) to be present as attend, ascertain the total votes cast in favour of each list in the district by adding up the votes recorded in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll, and thereupon publicly declare the votes recorded for each list of candidates.”

Based on the above, the procedure mandated by law that the Returning Officer should follow is-
1. Ascertain the total votes cast in favour of each list; and
2. Declare the votes recorded for each list of candidates.
Ascertain the total votes cast in favour of each list
According to section 84 (1) of the RPA, the Returning Officer as soon as practicable (i.e. in a timely manner and without delay) after the receipt of all the ballot boxes and the envelopes and packets delivered to him/her ascertain the votes. This ascertaining shall be done in the presence of the persons entitled under section 86 (1) of the RPA. Section 86 (1) states that-
“ (1) No person shall be present at the counting of the votes except-
(a) the returning officer and such other election officers as he may appoint to assist him in the counting;
(b) members of the Commission;
(c) duly appointed candidates;
(d) counting agents;
(e) such other persons as, in the opinion of the returning officer, have good reason to be present.”
Section 84(1) also sets out the method of ascertaining. It states that the Returning Officer shall ascertain the total votes recorded in favour of each list in the district by adding up the votes recorded in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll. However, the true meaning in the context of this section must be determined by the words that follow ascertain. Subsection (1) states that the “Returning Officer shall… ascertain the total votes cast…by adding up the votes recorded in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll”. Therefore, ascertaining the votes shall only be done by ‘by adding up the votes’ and not by verifying the votes.

Moreover, the Statements of Poll that should be used to add up the votes would be those in the possession of the Returning Officer. Pursuant to section 83(1) (c) the presiding officer shall-
“deliver the sealed ballot box, the sealed packets referred to in paragraph (b), and together with an envelope containing the key of the ballot box and a Statement of the Poll in Form 23A placed in one envelope sealed in the manner referred to in paragraph (b), to the returning officer of the district in which the polling place is situated.”
There is nothing is law that mandates ascertaining the votes with Statements of Poll in the possession of any of the persons required to be present pursuant to section 86(1).
Adding up the votes is done in accordance with section 87(1) which deals with method of counting. The method outlined is that in the presence of those required to attend the Returning Officer shall-
(a) open each ballot box;
(b) take out the ballot papers;
(c) count and record the number of ballot papers taken from each ballot box;
(d) count the votes recorded for each list of candidates.
Mistake on Statement of Poll/Verification Subsection (1A) of section 84 deals with the issue of mistake on the Statement of Polls and sets out two distinct scenarios.

Scenario 1-Where the Statement of Poll is not in the possession of the Returning Officer
“(1A) (a)Where an election officer for a polling district discovers a material error on the Statement of Poll from a polling station for that polling district, he shall inform the presiding officer for that polling station forthwith, and the presiding officer, if the Statement of Poll has not yet been sent to the Returning Officer, in the presence of the persons who signed the original Statement of Poll, shall prepare a corrected Statement of Poll, signed by himself and the original signatories present and the corrected Statement of Poll shall be sent to the Returning Officer;”

In this scenario a corrected Statement of Poll is done and then sent to the Returning Officer. Then section 84(1) will be activated.

Scenario 2- Where the Statement of Poll is in the possession of the Returning

Officer
“(1A (b) Where the mistake is discovered when the Statement of Poll is in the possession of the Returning Officer, the presiding officer shall be informed of the mistake and the Returning Officer shall summon the presiding officer and the persons who signed the original Statement of Poll, for the purpose of effecting the necessary correction to the Statement of Poll by the presiding officer in the presence of the other persons mentioned in this paragraph, as attend.”

In this scenario the presiding officer will inform the Returning Officer of the mistake and the mistake shall be corrected in the presence of the presiding officer and the persons who sign the original statement of poll. Then section 84(1) will be activated.

Section 84 (1A) (c) applies to both scenarios and states what happens to the corrected Statement of Poll. This provision outlines that- “The presiding officer shall post the corrected Statement of Poll next to the original incorrect Statement of Poll at his polling station and the Returning Officer shall use the corrected Statement of Poll in making the public declaration under subsection (1).”
Having posted the corrected Statement of Poll, this statement of Poll is then used to make the declaration mandated to be made under section 84(1). This means that the corrected Statement of the Poll will be used to ascertain and factored into the tally of the votes, the Returning Officer will then do his/her declaration.

Verification
Section 89 of the RPA deals with what the procedure when counting is completed and mentions verification. This means that verification comes after ascertaining. The section states-
“89.(1) Upon the conclusion of the final counting, under section 84, of the votes the returning officer, in the presence of such of the persons entitled under section 86(1) to be present as attend, shall-
(a) seal in separate packets the counted and rejected ballot papers;
(b) verify the ballot papers account given by each presiding officer by comparing it with-
(i) the number of ballot papers recorded under section 87(1)(c);
(ii) the unused and spoiled ballot papers in his possession; and
(iii) the record of tendered votes contained in the poll book;
(c) reseal the packets of unused and spoiled ballot papers;
(d) prepare a written statement as to the result of the verification of the ballot papers account and on request allow any counting agent present to make a copy thereof;
(e) publicly declare the result of the final counting;
(f) deliver to the Chief Election Officer a return in writing in respect of the final counting in Form 24 which shall set out the number of—
(i) valid votes cast for each list of candidates as aforesaid;
(ii) rejected ballot papers together with, in each case, the reason for rejection;
(iii) spoiled ballot papers delivered to him;
(iv) tendered ballot papers;
(v) persons who appear to have voted.”

Based on the above after counting the votes the Returning Officer is mandated by law to do several things including conducting verification.

However, verification is done when the counting is completed not during the count or before the count. Further, based on paragraph (b) nothing is mentioned about verifying by comparison with the Statement of Polls. Comparison is to be done between the Ballot Paper Account (which is distinct from the Statement of Polls (see section 83(9)) with the number of ballot papers recorded, the unused and spoiled ballots in the possession of the Returning Officer and the record of tendered votes contained in the poll book.

Declare the votes recorded for each list of candidates
Based on section 84 (1) of the RPA after the Returning Officer ascertains the votes he/she shall publicly declare the votes recorded for each list of candidates. Public declaration is mandated and like ascertainment of the votes must also be done in the presence of the persons listed in section 86(1) of the RPA. Accordingly, once the Returning Officer ascertains the votes (by counting) in the presence of the persons required and then declares he/she would have complied with the law.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020

IT’s now six days since the Guyanese people cast their votes to determine who would govern the country over the next five years. Since then we have had an abject lesson on how to frustrate the will of the people. As it became obvious that the coalition would be returned to power, the PPP in consort with its allies in the media and civil society went into top gear to prevent President David Granger and his coalition from taking office.
It is noteworthy how sections of the local media and other supposedly non-partisan organisations have turned a blind eye to the naked bullying, threat of extreme violence and actual acts of violence by the PPP. Yet these very agencies have joined the PPP in a blatant attack on the person of the president and the office itself.

One of our sister newspapers went overboard in that regard. In a front-page comment in its Friday, March 6 edition, it proclaimed the PPP’s narrative of rigged elections and used the occasion to personalise the attacks on the President. He was accused of having no respect for the law and of standing to benefit from the so-called fraudulent election. Here is part of that nasty front page comment: “Throughout his tenure in office, President Granger has presented himself as beyond reproach while flagrantly breaching the constitution of the Republic of Guyana in a selfish bid to remain in power to empower him and his constituency.”

That quotation tells the story of a brazen campaign aimed at inciting public resentment of the president with the distinct intention of delegitimising his entire tenure in office. This publication has on more than one occasion had to correct that narrative and put in perspective the unblemished record of the president and his government as far as the rule of law and the constitution is concerned. The record speaks for itself, but these destructive forces are bent on fanning the flames of discord and division that could only lead to mindless violence.

That front page comment completely ignores the fact that PPP gunmen invaded the GECOM building and that the PPP has done everything in its power to take over the GECOM operations. They call for verification while ignoring the fact that the SOPs which the PPP is holding up as the instruments of accuracy are riddled with inaccuracies. They ignore the fact that the actions of the PPP are aimed at intimidating an entire country and put us on a path of dangerous collision.

In fact, on the very day of that newspaper comment, there were several protests across the country with the outcome in some instances crossing the line that demarcates peaceful protest from intentional violent excursions. Police officers were physically attacked, innocent citizens were abused, and similarly attacked and public property was destroyed. Public protest is a constitutional right that must be preserved, but when it is used to further narrow partisan ends, it loses its legitimacy. The ethnic insults and hatred that emanated from some of those protests shake the very foundation of our multi-racial society.

It is not out of place to make the linkage between the rhetoric of the PPP and those emanating from some media houses, such as the one cited above and the kind of public performances we saw in some communities. We are being very careful not to condemn the communities as it is reasonable to understand how many citizens have been duped into believing the rhetoric that is being fed to them. The manipulation of the emotions of our citizens has long been a tool in the hands of gutless politicians.

Elections have always been times of stress and strife for our nation. We are yet to find a way to compete in harmony. Perhaps there is too much at stake. But that by itself cannot excuse the venom and hate that are planted in the consciousness of the Guyanese people. Those who traffic in that kind of politics do not deserve to occupy the seat of government. Further, those media outfits which act as cheerleaders for those backward forces are letting down the profession and betraying the public trust in them as upstanding umpires. Perhaps it is asking too much, but it must be asked. Can we tone down the campaign of discord and hate?

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020

Weighing in on the elections related case currently before the High Court, Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC) Khemraj Ramjattan said precedence was set in 2006 when AFC was advised by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to file an Election Petition after it had raised concerns over the tabulation of the votes in Region 10, which resulted in the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) receiving a geographic seat that should have gone to the alliance.

It was AFC Walter Melville, who had filed the Election Petition shortly after the 2006 General and Regional Elections. AFC had argued that it had won more votes than the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in Region 10, and as such, it should have gotten one of the two geographic seats in that District.

In an interview with Guyana Chronicle on Sunday, Ramjattan who is also the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Prime Ministerial Candidate, explained that after the Returning Officer declared the votes for Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice), the AFC detected an error in the tabulation which short changed it of a geographic seat.

Ramjattan, who was the Leader of the AFC at the time, along with David Patterson and Shiela Holder approached the then Chief Elections Officer, Gocool Boodhoo for a recount before the declaration of the national results but was told that the RO’s declaration was final.

“He then as CEO declared the national results, computed on that basis a seat for the PPP instead, and PM Sam Hinds sat on it. AFC then filed an elections petition which was heard some 5 years after,” Ramjattan recalled.

Today, Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire will determine whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear an electoral related case even as the elections process remains active. The case stemmed from an allegation by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) the Returning Officer for Region Four Clairmont Mingo failed to complete the verification process before making a declaration on the votes in the District. A private citizen is asking the country to block the declaration of the National Results unless and until the verification process is completed in full view of the party agents and observers.

When asked about the decision in making, Ramjattan indicated that “administrative bodies, whether they be constitutional or statutory, must be consistent in their decisions, even if they are headed by different persons. You cannot have when the circumstances are square on exact, a different result for AFC in 2006 and now for another party. That is capricious and arbitrary. It was the PPP which had stoutly gone along with the elections petition route then. Their Prime Minister Candidate, S Hinds, benefitted then.”

It is likely that whether or not the declarations sought is granted, either side would move to appeal the decision. “Indeed you cannot deny that right. So if the Applicant loses he may want to go right up to the CCJ. Similarly, the CEO and GECOM can do the same. That is an unsavoury situation. What happens to the country in the meantime? It is for this reason I took the approach in 2006 when I decided to act on the presumption of regularity of the RO’s results, and proceeded with the Elections petition.” Like GECOM, he believes that the Election Petition should be filed after the declaration of the results, in accordance with the Constitution and Elections Laws if there is a concern over the result. “Its lawful conduct can only be questioned by petition, never injunctions,” the AFC Leader emphasized.

Ramjattan, who listened to the live recording of arguments put forward in the elections case before Justice George-Wiltshire, said he was impressed with the submissions from both Senior Counsel Neil Boston and Douglas Mendes, but maintained that an election petition must be filed after the declaration of the results of the elections during a 28 day period.

“You know I miss the Courts badly. But I should tell you I know both Counsel. Douglas Mendes and me were at Cave Hill Campus and Law School together in 1980s. Good friends. Use to tell me I read too much Marxism. Boston too although he was a year ahead with Carl and Basil. I thought they argued their cases very well indeed. Like true pros. They will make law here,” he said.

Like the rest of Guyana and the world at large, the AFC Leader is anxiously awaiting the Chief Justice’s ruling in the matter brought before the court by a private citizen on behalf of the PPP/C.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020