Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Last Thursday, acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire held the Case Management Conference for the petitions filed into the March 2, 2020 election. Amidst complaints the counts in some regions were flawed, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) promised to address the allegations through a recount by establishing Order 60 of 2020. The Order, which commits to “final credible” count by utilizing specific quantitative and qualitative metrics, was not honoured in totality, fueling perception GECOM foisted a deception on the electorate.
Presiding over GECOM is chairperson, Justice Claudette Singh, who has more than four decades judicial experience, a significant number of which has been as a sitting judge. Thus, when GECOM ignored the advice of its own legal counsel and then Chief Parliamentary Counsel that the Order would supersede the electoral laws, it was generally accepted the Chairperson knew what she was doing and would deliver the promised “credible” results. But it was not until major discrepancies surfaced the Chairperson, though acknowledging them, advised that GECOM was rendered powerless under the electoral laws to act, and only an election petition can address these. The petitions represent the failure of GECOM to act on the totality of the Order and aid the theory some were either threatened or voluntarily participated in acts to ensure regime change, not excluding the court.
One of the vocal players in Guyana’s election was the United States (U.S). Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo overtly partisan aggressive role in our electoral process was never before seen. He was integrally involved to the extent where, from afar, he was issuing directives about what he will or will not accept, even from the court. Public officials, including GECOM staffers, government ministers and the judiciary, were threatened with visa revocations should they fail to comply with U.S’ instructions and wishes. These acts of foreign interference and electoral intimidation seem to be the modus operandi of President Donald Trump’s administration.
As the U.S prepares for its presidential election on November 3 Guyanese watch eerie similarities by Trump and his party to influence electoral victory. The Republican party and its supporters are utilising tactics of voter intimidation, voter suppression, threats of violence, accusation the election would be rigged if a desired outcome is not achieved, and tacitly facilitating foreign interference to benefit the incumbent. The Leader of the Free World and his animated supporters have people scratching their heads whether what they are doing is about protecting electorate democracy or acquiring and retaining power by any means necessary.
Last August, U.S Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, William Evanina warned of foreign interference as was done in 2016; an interference that benefitted Trump. The president not only sidestepped the revelation but has since stopped the intelligence office from briefing Congress on election security. Sections of the American society, including the Democratic party and civil rights legal organisations, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are fighting back to protect the vote. They view the behaviour of President Trump, his supporters, and the Republican party as threats to electoral democracy.
In Guyana, those threats and the players involved were unmasked after the ballot was cast. As a sovereign nation, not unlike the U.S, our votes and election must be consistent with the Constitution and Laws of Guyana. These petitions present the opportunity to protect these values. Guyanese are counting on the legal teams representing the petitioners to fight, with all their might, for the restoration of electoral democracy; to ensure those who were eligible to vote, turned up to vote and provided proof of identity, were able to vote; to ensure those votes were counted and who persons voted for received their vote. There is expectation the arguments of the patriotic petitioners would be robust, self-critiquing, professionally researched and iron clad. It cannot be overstated it is not the Judge’s duty to argue the cases and influence the deserving outcome; it is that of the petitioners’ legal teams.
