Until the submission of the official report of Election Commission of Inquiry (CoI), into the March 2020, General and Regional Elections, is made public an analysis of the methodology employed by the commission and its eventual findings won’t be possible. One therefore hopes the divisive ‘one Guyana’ government, with its culture of secrecy, would make the report accessible to all the people of Guyana.
Preparing the final report is an important outcome for public inquiry. Certain features, including language, style, format, content, and structure, have a direct impact on the public’s acceptance or rejection. Nevertheless, after reading certain statements, in some sections of the media reportedly made by Senator Sophia Chote SC, I could not help but observe a few important points.
First, the closing remarks of the learned counsel, of Trinidad and Tobago, at the conclusion of the hearings of the commission. In remarks the counsel said words to the effect that the CoI does not have a political agenda [Guyana Chronicle, February 11, 2023].
An important question is why was it necessary to mention this and emphasise the Commission does not have a political agenda? Answer: only because there is a political agenda. The apparent compulsion to make such statement merely served to remind Guyanese that there is a not -so- hidden political agenda, on the part of the President Irfaan Ali government. Conversely, expectation is harboured that the jurists on the commission will be guided by their Oath.
There is a fundamental problem with the intent of the President in relation to the CoI manifestly evident in his approach. The interplay between People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) policies, partisanship, and extant political circumstances has placed the work of the commission in the realm of public suspicion and mistrust.
The genesis of the CoI points to a definite political agenda, by the government. In a previous column I made the point that, both the figure and ground of this commission have cast more than a shadow of doubt on the pureness of the intention of the President in appointing the Commission.
In that very column I wrote that: given the sensitivity of the election matter, and the fact that the PPP/C was a competing party in those very troubling elections, that, the President would have at the very least, interrogate the practical idea of consulting with other parties, and encouraged them to co-design the Commission and its Terms of Reference (ToR).
The PPP/C was involved in the very election that brought worrying questions to the fore about the conduct, administration, and management of those elections, and the general functionality of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The President is therefore under a constitutional obligation to act in an inclusive manner. The Constitution proclaims Guyana to be an “inclusive democracy.”
I remain firm in my conviction that, the President has squandered the opportunity to show strong leadership and to be inclusive in his approach on a particularly significant national issue. It could not be that of all the political parties that contested the Elections, only one, – the PPP/C- gets to pick the team that would investigate the processes, by which that party was declared the victor by GECOM after a recount process that unearthed grave irregularities but were ignored by the very organisation that has responsibility to ensure the integrity of the process, from start to finish. Clearly, the PPP/C is in an advantageous position.
When one thinks that both the form and formulation of the ToR were decided on, and drafted by the PPP/C one could reasonably conclude that, that party has given itself an unfair advantage against all other parties, that contested the Elections. I suspect that the PPP/C has done so because it can. But in doing so, it has committed a serious error, fatal to public trust, which is absolutely necessary for good cooperation and acceptance of the work, and findings of the Commission.
Public remarks about no political agenda are not the same as the known political reality, in so far as the appointment of the Commission is concerned, in communities and regions across this country. There is a political agenda.
Second, the Senior Counsel has already, presumptuously determined some aspects of the expected report, arrived at certain conclusions, and made recommendations even before the submission of its final report to the President in a report in the Guyana Chronicle issue of February 12, 2023 [Independent legal adviser, management training needed for GECOM Chairperson].
According to the Chronicle report, the learned counsel said, “…GECOM, Justice (ret’d) Senior Counsel Claudette Singh, based on what she said during her testimony, appeared to have dropped the ball on serious issues in the aftermath of the elections.” This is taking a lot of liberty, particularly coming from a counsel of another jurisdiction with little knowledge of the nuances of the political culture of Guyana.
Testimonies, evidence and findings are not synonymous. Yet, the counsel for the commission, went ahead and made certain conclusions, in her summation at the closing of public hearings. But even if it were the case that the Chairperson might have “dropped the ball” (words attributed to the Senior Counsel) as a matter of ethics or professional responsibility, shouldn’t the counsel have allowed that conclusion, and recommendation to emerge from the analysis and findings of the commissioners?
It appears as though the learned counsel could not resist “gilding the lily”. This is an important point because it reflects the subtle push for a particular outcome [not the truth] from the commission. Apparently the team came here with preconceived ideas. Their line of questioning suggested that they saw the case through a legal rather than operational lens.
This is further substantiated by the fact that on day eighteen of the hearing session, retired Deputy Commissioner of Police, Maxine Graham, had cause to seek the intervention of the Chairman to caution the learned counsel to mind her tone, and loudness, in putting questions to her. It appeared that, the deputy commissioner was not providing the answers the counsel wanted to hear; answers that synchronised with apparent predetermined views about the case.
It is true that sometimes, CoI assume that any competent leader or manager is able to control every aspect of an area of responsibility. They equate failure with incompetence. They do not inquire into what control was possible in the circumstance that prevailed at the time in question. In turn, this leads to recommendations that emphasise centralised control over more decentralised systems instead of having discussions about where the balance should have been at the time and in the circumstance in question.
Guyanese await the report of the CoI.
