The suggestion that the sanitization of the voters list in its current state could be successfully achieved during the routine Claims and Objections (C&O) process, just prior to the finalization of a new electoral roll, is an indication of the lack of understanding of the reality or a refusal to acknowledge the reality. It would not be an over-exaggeration to say that by design and practice, the GECOM’s C&O process is biased for inclusion (Claims) and a deterrent for exclusion (Objections).
As a practical matter, during the C&O process, GECOM has rejected/not upheld objections which have been filed on the grounds that “the registrant does not belong to the class of registrants”, where the defined class is those registrants who are known, are located, are currently living in the registration area. GECOM has instructed its officers that on the basis of recent legislation and rulings of the Court, these references are obsolete and consequently not grounds for an objection. In fact, the only objections GECOM allows to be upheld during C&O are those which are anchored in the production of a death certificate for the entry of the identified registrant to whom the objection is made. C&O as currently conducted therefore, both in terms of the objective criteria used for decision making and the time allocated to the process was not intended to serve this purpose. In addition, individual citizens are primarily interested in enforcing their own rights and obligations rather than proactively pursuing breaches being committed by others. They rely on the relevant institutions for ensuring those protections. Sanitizing the list therefore requires a unique institutional mechanism. Given the current construct of the environment created by political challenges and court outcomes, we are of the view that a special intervention facilitated through legislative provisions is necessary, and their success can best be assured if they are piloted and supported by the Attorney General.
It is our view that the remedy to the malady of the corrupted electoral roll now lies in the political and legislative domains and not within the GECOM boardroom. As early as 2005, when provisions for continuous registration were introduced, GECOM anticipated and made known and later experienced the negative impact of the process on the quality of the electoral roll. Pursuant to the representation at the time, an agreement to implement the recommended solution was concluded and inked in June-2007. This agreement got the official support of all the then parliamentary political parties, the government and the international partners. It resulted in the House-to-House registration of 2008.
GECOM’s internal review following the 2011 general and regional elections brought the issue of the flawed list to the fore again. The search for a remedy led to the decision to introduce an expiry date on ID cards. This decision established that the expiry date should be the birthday of the registrant in the seventh (7th) year following registration. The objective here was to require the registrant to have an in-person interaction with GECOM at least once every seven (7) years. This would have several beneficial effects including the updating of biographical information and the photograph of the individual. It would also be a challenge for the dead to appear in-person at this time. The implementation of this decision was frustrated by administrative challenges, which we believe were facilitated by influences external to GECOM.
Following the 2015 general and regional elections, GECOM decided to conduct a new round of House-to-House registration, similar to that of the 2008 exercise. This was a unanimous position and without any dissent from any quarter or controversy. The budgetary allocations for this exercise was not approved by the National Assembly until 2018, for use by GECOM in 2019. This 2019 House-to-House exercise was aborted following political developments and court challenges and their outcomes, frustrating the achievement of the desired goals of the exercise.
We mention these facts to underscore our position mentioned earlier that first, action for the implementation of the solution lies in the political and legislative domain and second, that a special intervention facilitated through legislative provisions is necessary, and its success can best be assured if they are piloted and supported by the Attorney General.
Commissioners:
Alexander, Corbin and Trotman
