Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Dear Editor
The Canadian High Commissioner to Guyana Lilian Chatterjee’s tenure has come to an end and she is about to depart our shores. The High Commissioner has been working the circuit on courtesy calls and exit interviews; in the latter instance talking politics and of the legacy she leaves here in Guyana.
One such interview is quite striking. As one could guess, an alleged incident came up for clarity regarding possible interference in the work of GECOM in the early days, post-March 2, 2020. The Newsroom reporter puts the question: “There is a specific allegation that I think you never responded to, I’m not even sure you’ve heard of it, but it was that you were part of a group of persons who stormed the GECOM building at Hadfield Street.”
The High Commissioner responds, “I never stormed any building, or door. I think they said I kicked down the door. I don’t have the strength to kick down any doors. That was pure propaganda and in fact at the time they said I had done that I was actually with my colleagues – the US, the UK and the EU and myself – and at the time they said I was doing that we were meeting with President Granger. Our appointment with him was at 5 o’clock that day, in the evening. And after we met with the President, as a group we went away. We worked on a joint statement together which we put out later that night. We never went back to the Ashmin’s Building when they allege what they allege I had done.”
In a much earlier interview with Gordon Moseley, the identical criticism of the High Commissioner is raised. In the engagement with Moseley she says, “I’ve listened to a lot of nonsense about me kicking the door down, as you know I am a little person, I’d like to think that I am Amazon woman but I certainly did not kick down any doors in that building nor barge into any meetings….”
Gordon asked pointedly, “So there was no barging into any room at any point by yourself? “High Commissioner Chatterjee responds, “Well what happened is when Mr. Mingo started announcing the results the Commissioners were in the meeting where we met with Justice Singh before. It was a glass door and people were shouting and I could see her. I couldn’t see the commissioners, but I could see one of her people in front of the door and I said: Do you think I can inform her what is going on? He said yes, so I knocked on the door, it was a glass door. So, I knocked on the door, she saw me and motioned like this [for her to come]. I opened the door, I actually did not go inside the room, I stood at the door and said, it seems like Mr. Mingo is announcing the Region 4 results. They never said anything. I closed the door and stayed out. I was being respectful. And they actually continued with the meeting.”
High Commissioner Chatterjee continued, “When the shouting and screaming started, when I said that it was right at the beginning, before people started shouting and screaming. As the shouting crescendo started rising the PPP commissioners left the meeting to see what was going on, so she was left in the room with the APNU commissioners. I never intervened beyond that, and I wasn’t intervening. I was just informing her what was going on and the rest of the people. I never asked them to do anything, I just wanted them to know what was happening.”
Editor, any right thinking Guyanese would find those two accounts of the same event qualitatively different. I would hazard that an ambassador should not alter critical portions of accounts and reports of official duty. The High Commissioner’s reflections on her official involvement in election activities in Guyana seem to have evolved with the effluxion of time.
Additionally the High Commissioner was an accredited Observer. We are reminded by The Declaration of Principles for International election Observation and Code of Conduct for International Election, ccommemorated October 27, 2005, at the United Nations, New York, “Observers must not obstruct any element of the election process, including pre-election processes, voting, counting and tabulation of results and processes transpiring after election day. Observers may bring irregularities, fraud or significant problems to the attention of election officials on the spot, unless this is prohibited by law, and must do so in a non-obstructive manner. Observers may ask questions of election officials, political party representatives and other observers inside polling stations and may answer questions about their own activities, as long as observers do not obstruct the election process. In answering questions observers should not seek to direct the election process. Observers may ask and answer questions of voters but may not ask them to tell for whom or what party or referendum position they voted.”
Regards
Sherod Avery Duncan, MP
