Exposing Clement Rohee’s propensity for disinformation                                                                                         

Dear Editor,

I am compelled to respond to Rohee`s letter, which is headlined as ‘his convictions in relation to GECOM`s readiness for elections 2025’, as opposed to its readiness to conduct free, fair and transparent elections. Given Rohee`s propensity for disinformation, which I will lay bare once again, there should be no need to pay his letter any heed. However, the gravity of the matter and the specifics of his conviction necessitate that the citizenry be relieved of his contamination of public information and things GECOM.

Rohee contends that the postponed GECOM meeting of July 3 was not a “crucial meeting”. Thankfully, he admits that the meeting was postponed. His contention of the meeting not being statutory is irrelevant. It was agreed that in the lead up to elections, special meetings will be held on Thursdays. The notice of postponement acknowledged that a meeting was scheduled. To wit, there were “time sensitive matters” to be discussed, on which I shall elaborate herein.

First, the meeting was postponed on the eve of the certification of the Revised List of Voters, soon to be the Final List of Electors, yet Rohee does not consider the determination, of how the names of the dead, reported by the Commissioner of Police, and the Chief Medical Officer; and of the thousands who died overseas will be deleted from the list, as a crucial matter.

All that he said about compilation of discussion notes and referrals to the AG are the ongoing shenanigans that will result in those ineligible names being retained on the list, on the pretext that time ran out on GECOM. It should be note that the timing of the elections emanated from the CEO`s advice on GECOM`s state of preparedness.

Second, the issue of the incarcerated languishes at the AG`s Chamber after the Chairperson referred the matter to that office. Everyone has agreed that the incarcerated are entitled to vote, but the forum at which this matter should be reported on is postponed, rather than convened to deal with such “time sensitive” matters. Imagine, Rohee unashamedly refers to the Chair`s citation of the Prison Act Cap 11:01 (it is “an offence for a person without a lawful excuse   to speak or communicate with any prisoner”) as the basis for not enabling the incarcerated to vote.

Implied in their interpretation of the law is that the conduct of elections is not a lawful reason to communicate with prisoners, although the incarcerated have the constitutional right to vote. Their contention flies in the face of the constitutional right of the incarcerated citizens. To wit, they dragged out this matter unto the dissolution of the National Assembly, thus demonstrating no commitment to activating the legislative remedy that they identified.

Rohee clearly admits that the issue of the “Non-resident Order” is still to be resolved. That too is “time sensitive”.

On the question of the acquisition of “sensitive and non-sensitive items”, the Commission was belatedly informed about those items, and was only advised on June 27 about the actual procurement, only to realize that items, to the tune of millions of dollars, had already been sole sourced from India, including items such as, electoral ink and seals, which may well not meet the criteria for sole sourcing, since in keeping with the National Procurement Manual and the Procurement Act they are neither ‘exclusive items’ nor ‘specialized in nature’ and do not meet the criteria for sole sourcing. There seems to be a preference not to have this matter interrogated.

In the face of all of the above, Rohee concluded that “there was no ‘time sensitive’ issue slated for discussion” and “no critical tasks outstanding”.

I therefore find it necessary to sanitize the public information landscape of his disinformation, and to decontaminate the public communication atmosphere. That Rohee`s accusation of me being propagandistic is applicable to himself is demonstrated by his attempt to juxtapose my stance as a commissioner to pronouncements of the Leader of the Opposition.

Unlikely me, he does not enjoy the freedom of being objective about things GECOM, since he, by his own admission, is an adherent to the PPP/C`s positions and directives on things GECOM. Suffice to say that much of the talk about satisfaction with GECOM`s state of preparedness is limited to the execution of a “work plan” that does not address critical issues, some of which have been referenced above, which are prerequisites for a free, fair and transparent elections, in Guyana`s prevailing circumstances

Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner