The growing consensus among we the voting mass is, Bharrat Jagdeo an enigmatic politician and phenotypic man, would from the evidence available, rather have it both ways. And this conviction is supported by his once advocacy of biometrics, evolving within a matter of years, to that of an ardent opponent.
In fact, it was only a recent 2019, when Jagdeo, an unabashed Opposition Leader, bawled most pitifully for a clean voters list and biometrics. However, with him now vacillating between proponent and opponent, means it’s likely that we the voting mass, would’ve to relive our most recent elections, marred by innumerable irregularities.
And it’s from these irregularities, we bring to the fore, 61 certified dead who rose from their eternal rest, to cast ballots red, in favour of the corruptible PPP. In fact, it was in these very elections, 4,864 overseas based electors, registered their transatlantic ballots, in the dishonourable cup.
Moreover, it was in these very contentious elections, that 150 ballot boxes stuffed with fraud, were delivered in PPP strongholds. Additionally, it was in these very elections, 49 ballot boxes supernaturally emerged, again in PPP strongholds, without the statutory documents. Finally, it was in these very elections, 1,278 oaths of identity, caught up in a Houdini spell, went missing in action from their respective ballot boxes.
So, considering these grave electoral irregularities, along with the observer missions’ recommendations, one would’ve anticipated elections with biometrics. But inexplicably that’s not the case, as Jagdeo revelling in it both ways, would out of political expediency, gyrate between positions.
And evidencing this ever-changing position is his once argument that biometrics, down to logistics, can’t be operationalised in the hinterland. However, this fallacious argument was debunked post-haste, even as he then proffered, our unreliable electricity supply may preclude uninterrupted biometrics. But this argument was rightly rubbished, so with the agility of a stripper on a pole, he swiftly repositioned, the limited time to elections rules out biometrics as an election tool.
However, with minimum of Ghanaian research, this newest excuse was classed asinine, and rightly added to his long list of useless propositions. Now, caught in a most compromising position, with his red slip on full display, Jagdeo is to assert, with a straight face, that biometrics will disenfranchise voters.
However, considering Jagdeo’s newest and ever-changing positions, we the voting masses, with a sense of patriotism, must expose him for what he really is: An opportunistic politician. In fact, even as we expose the naked truth on Jagdeo, the inference we share is, he has had more positional changes than that of a seasoned porn star.
For it was this very shameless Jagdeo, with forked tongue, who romanticised biometrics, like a long-lost wife. So, with him now rejecting the very biometrics, like they were the Mohameds, we must challenge to know, when did this disenfranchise epiphany come upon him.
For Jagdeo, with the desperation of a drowning man, would want us to believe that biometrics is foreign to us, as family life is to him. But contrary to what he fallaciously proclaims, biometrics we live and breathe, vis-à-vis computers, banking, mobile phone apps etc.
In fact, it’s these very biometrics, at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, that represent our unique physical and biological characteristics, to enhance security. Therefore, considering the broad application of biometrics, one can argue, irrefutably so, that it can serve a critical role in our electoral security, even as it enhances integrity.
In fact, all things considered, biometrics with international application, has to be the electoral tool from heaven, for a country with perennially disputed elections. However, despite international application, the GECOM Chairwoman, a creature of Jagdeo, stands obstructionist to its introduction, even as she promotes manual identification.
But manual examination of electors’ physical characteristics, as we presently do, is in no way comparable to computerised biometric technology. Thus, with the inferiority to biometrics incontrovertible, we stand collectively with one cacophonous voice, championing biometrics, even as we reject Jagdeo’s inclination to have it both ways.
