Coalition-nominated GECOM

Dear Editor,

Commissioner Vincent Alexander’s claim that GECOM disenfranchised some 900 or 10 per cent of Disciplined Services’ members who were qualified to vote on June 2, ‘because their names were not on the list’ is mystifying to say the least.

Commissioner Alexander’s claim was probably meant to; 1) denigrate the hard work put in by senior technical managers and supporting staff at the Secretariat in readiness for June 2; 2)discredit months of careful planning and preparation at the level of the Commission; and 3)generate discontent and sow distrust amongst the ranks of the Disciplined Services as regards the electoral process in Guyana under the PPP/C and the current leadership at GECOM.

Commissioner Alexander’s false flag is not only highly irresponsible it is fraught with consequential implications considering the potential political and legal ramifications, and the effect it can have at a time like this, when the nation is still making efforts to avoid any backsliding reminiscent of the difficult period the country experienced during the March to August 2020 period.

Fortunately for the good of the country and the populace in general, such claims do not gain traction. The APNU has such a discredited track record when it comes to elections that, notwithstanding its attempts to be a ‘born again champion’ of free and fair elections, those who take them seriously would not be large in number and can be seated comfortably in a 45 seater minibus.

But that being said, it is the attempt to instill a sense of distrust in the electoral system within the Disciplined Services and to undermine the efforts of the current management at GECOM that should be considered as dangerous and a disingenuous piece of subterfuge.

Long before a date for the holding of

LGE ‘23 was announced, it became a favorite pastime of Commissioner Alexander to accuse GECOM of everything under the sun so much so that he openly expressed his opposition in various ways time and again, to the holding of local government elections. Take for example, the following unfounded accusations that made headlines in sections of the media from time to time: Alexander accuses GECOM of contriving to appoint a PPP/C preferred candidate (S/N 5.9.’23); Alexander accuses GECOM of spreading propaganda ( S/N 30.9.’22); Alexander accuses GECOM of being laid back in cross-matching for LGE ( S/N 22.6.’22).

Without providing any evidence whatsoever, the long-serving Commissioner came up with the number of 900 ranks belonging to the GDF, GPF and GPS who he wrongly claimed were ‘disenfranchised because their names were not on the list.’

What list was Commissioner Alexander talking about? Isn’t he aware that a list containing the details of army, police and prison service ranks who would vote on June 2, was generated by GECOM in collaboration with the GDF, GOF and GFS while those who would vote on June 12 will remain on the final voters’ list enabling them to vote on E day?

Commissioner Alexander apparently forgot to remember that first of all, a list of electors registered as ranks belonging to the GDF, GPF and GPS, who are qualified to vote must be extracted from the National Register of Registrants ( NRR) and that those electors must be registered in specific LAAs ie; constituencies or municipalities where they reside.

Following that ‘joint table top exercise’,

GECOM would then prepare sealed envelopes containing a ballot for each rank who would vote at balloting stations on June 2, 2023. The sealed envelopes would have the names of each rank as per electoral district, as well as the constituency/ municipality where the rank was registered. If as Commissioner Alexander claims, GECOM disenfranchised of 10% or 900 ranks belonging to the Joint Services, then it follows that GECOM, under the APNU+AFC, disenfranchised 791.7 or ten per cent of the 7,917 ranks who were qualified to vote in the advanced voting for the 2018 LGE.

But Alexander’s claim makes no sense because we know that for both the 2018 and 2023 LGE respectively, a substantial number of ranks belonging to the GDF, GPF and GPS, did not turn out to vote for advanced voting because they are listed to vote in their respective LAAs on June 12.

If ten per cent of a total of 7,917 ranks on the 2018 Disciplined Services list was 791.7, and if ten per cent of a total of 5,979 ranks on the 2023 Disciplined Services list is 579.9, the big question is; where did Commissioner Alexander’s 900 come from? Could this be another case of a flawed mathematical calculation reminiscent of the Appeal Court’s of March 22, 2019?

Lastly, there cannot be any question about ‘what if the person is at an interior location’ on June 12 since all the agencies concerned had worked together and reached understandings as to where each rank would be on June 2 and June 12 so that they can enjoy their constitutional right to cast their vote.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee