COI Report released to shift public’s attention away from PPP local government electoral malpractices

President Irfaan Ali’s Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the 2020 General and Regional Elections has failed to address the cause(s) of our electoral problems. Further, it was deficient in intent and Terms of Reference, and sought to justify the allegations of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), demonise and criminalise some people and a section of society. Below are some of the highlights gleaned from reading the report: –

1. The report skirted the conduct of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson Justice Claudette Singh S.C who played a day-to-day role in the electoral operations.  The report was kind to the Chairperson in spite of the blunders that occurred in those elections and the evidence led at the COI.
2. The information presented to theCOI by one of the heads of security was dismissed by his principal. This COI gave this no consideration.
3. The people who were targeted never gave evidence, given that they were charged on issues related to the elections and are before the court. Yet the report presented damning statements against them.
4. TheCOI ignored opinions expressed in society, surveyed and otherwise, of important elements of the elections. One such is the eroding confidence in the electoral system, particularly after the 2020 Recount and the revelations unearthed.
5. TheCOI paid no attention #4  in spite of the plethora of public information on this, including a survey conducted by the United States-based International Republican Institute (IRI) that found 81% of Guyanese feel electoral reforms are necessary. This information was readily accessible to the COI because it is in the public domain.
6. TheCOI ignored the clamour for the implementation of biometrics to safeguard the integrity of the vote. GECOM shot this down with the casting vote of Chairperson Singh who supported the PPP-nominated Commissioners.
7. TheCOI sought to give the impression the report emerged out of the views solicited or widely available when it failed to truly represent all sides. For instance, in the 1965 International Commission of Jurist (ICJ) inquiry on the ethnic composition of the Public Service/Disciplined Services, whereas the PPP boycotted presenting evidence before the commission, the commission in its report made it clear they took into consideration the party’s public statements in arriving at its findings.
8. The recommendations in the report are vacuous.

It is clear the COI was never intended to unearth the truth or proceed in a deliberative manner, but merely established for the sole purpose to protect the PPP regime. Ali’s COI was no different from the one established for the 1992 Elections by Cheddie Jagan. The intent of Jagan’s COI was to corner Hamilton Green and other black leaders but ended up being a damp squib.

Also instructive is the timing of the release of the report when evidence is circulating of the PPP engaging in electoral malpractices in the Local Government Elections even before a ballot is cast. This is typical PPP custom and practice which can no longer fool the Guyanese society. The release of the report was timed to shift the public’s attention away from matters of great importance and that would create embarrassment for the regime and party.

The report appeared rushed and lacked the benefit of a representative cross-section of commissioners and others.

The COI has not only fallen short in the quality of its report but has wasted taxpayers’ money and produced nothing that could help society have free, fair and credible elections,  and declarations that would reflect the true will of the people.