The 2020 election is over in so far as results have been declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and gazette, yet questions and disappointment linger whether the electorate was deceived by GECOM.
Depending on who speaks, one is likely to hear a different story. Some feel they have been cheated because the guidelines in the Order were not fully executed which would have helped in “determining a final credible count” as committed to by GECOM. Others do not care because their party of choice is in office or the party they despise is out and their political rival was ‘caught’ rigging the election.
Where there is universal acceptance is that the recount proved there were grave irregularities. Where there exist differences is how to deal with the irregularities. Citizens moved to the courts to have the issue settled. Some argued the irregularities should be discounted in “determining a final credible count” and a declaration. Others pushed to have the declaration made with the irregularities and an election petition filed thereafter. The latter argument, which was supported by the then opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and some sections of the international community, prevailed based on the rulings of the court. But even the rulings of the court were not without question.
Some felt the judiciary made political not legal decisions and was held hostage to forces, local and international, who wanted to achieve a desired result by any means necessary. Many concluded the integrity of the election became a non-issue because of the forces who wanted regime change and communicated what they will not accept from the court, even dangling the threat of visa revocation to officers of the judiciary, government, and GECOM officials.
For some more important was why did the commissioners of GECOM, in the first place, agree to a Recount knowing the Order as constituted could not have been fulfilled? How could the Chairwoman, a member of the legal fraternity, condone and promote the deception GECOM was committed to delivering a “final credible count?” Could it be that some commissioners were naïve in thinking the legal minds on the Commission were sincere in saying the Order could have been fulfilled in its entirety?
Could it be some commissioners placed more credence on their fellow commissioners and ignored the legal advice of the Commission’s legal counsel but most importantly the warning of Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Charles Fung-A-Fatt S.C, that the Order would supersede the electoral laws and infringe on the right of the electors? Has GECOM let the electorate down?
Some or all of the answers the electorate may never know and/or could only be answered by the way of an Election Petition. Undoubtedly, a section of the electorate feels betrayed by the Commissioners as another gloats that it has succeeded in outsmarting the Commission. This is not a comfortable place any Commission would want to find itself. This is why an Election Petition will allow for the Observations that flowed from the Recount, which GECOM ignored, to be deliberated on. It is therefore welcoming news this will be filed on Monday, August 31st. Given the non-fulfillment of the Order by GECOM it would not be unreasonable to expect the Court will hear this matter expeditiously. It is also hope GECOM will be among the leading advocates to realise this.
