Dear Editor,
It has long now been rumoured that GECOM`s Chairperson, Justice Retired Claudette Singh, SC, CCH wishes to see the back of me. The apparent reason is my exposure of her ineptitude, incompetence and bias in the conduct of the affairs of GECOM.
Her recent public response, to the letter of Commissioners Alexander, Corbin and Trotman, exemplifies both of the above: the desire to see the back of me as a commissioner, and her ineptitude, incompetence and bias.
In her response to our letter, which never requested that a meeting be called, but called her out for not complying with sections 96 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act, she skirts/ignores our accusation, that is that she never publicly declared the results of the General and Regional elections; and never presented the results of the regional elections to the Commission as the law requires. I dare here to refute that fact.
Her contention that the Commission is not properly constituted cannot justify her clear dereliction of duty. In any circumstance, the Commission`s life could not have come to an end before the results were declared. She failed to present the requisite report for the regional elections to the Commission, and to make public declarations as stipulated by law when there was no contention about the Commission not being duly constituted.
On the specific issue of the life of the Commission, she has taken unto herself to interpret, and actualize her interpretation of, the Constitution, without even the courtesy of informing the affected Commissioners.
When called to account for her dereliction, she makes the declaration: the Commission is not duly constituted, and belatedly shared the gazetted results with the Commissioners, who she had unilaterally and implicitly ousted with them and the public being unaware of her autocratic action.
Never before has the Constitution been interpreted in such a manner, not even under her watch, a la 2020. I have served for 18 years under different regimes as an opposition nominee and/or Presidential appointee without the issue of my term of office being subjected to the new configuration of the Parliament and/or the change of the office bearers, to wit the leader of the opposition.
This is similar to the appointment of Supreme Court Judges in the US. The basis being that once those Judges are appointed, they are insulated from political pressures. They cannot ordinarily be removed by the political forces who participated in their appointment. They are free to act without having to ‘look-over their shoulders’. Notably, commissioners are not de jure representatives of their nominators.
In view of the aforementioned dichotomy and context, a judicial interpretation, or explicit legislative intervention, is required rather than Claudette`s jurisdictional usurpation.
Let`s presume that the Honourable Justice is correct in her interpretation of Article 161(3)(b) of the Constitution: “three members to be appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition tendered after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.”
How is 161(2): “The Chairperson of the Elections Commission shall be … appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly” to be interpreted?
How different is the chairperson`s appointment to that of the nominees of the Leader of the Opposition. Why has Claudette, based on her own erudite interpretation of the Constitution, remained in office while casting the opposition nominees to the curb?
With regard to the composition of GECOM, I maintain my original and public position that GECOM in the context of real politics in Guyana is not fit-for-purpose and should be reconstituted to be patently un-biased/non-partisan and professional. All of the observer missions, over the years, have come to the same conclusion, albeit in different words.
Hopefully, those who claim to represent change will not simply pursue changing six for a half a dozen or even worse a six for a nine.
Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
