We are faced now with a regime created not out of fraudulent elections but one which is illegal and unconstitutional

The one month extension to the constitutional timeframe for the holding of the 2006 elections has been the subject of much debate and I hope that it is now clear to all that the extension was made in accordance with the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act. Another election to which reference is often made to prove that the results were infected by fraud was in respect of 1997. That election was the subject of an election petition case, known as the Esther Perreira case, and featuring some of the top lawyers of the day including Rex McKay, Keith Massiah, Miles Fitzpatrick, Doodnauth Singh and Ralph Ramkarran. It is important that any distortion or allegation of fraud is addressed by reference to the facts and perhaps helpful for all of us to reflect on other instances in which real electoral fraud took place.   

We recall that following street protests led by the PNCR, CARICOM stepped in and as part of the fact-finding process, Cross J. undertook a painstaking audit of the counts of the votes of the general and regional elections. The Commission found no evidence of fraud.

Continue reading “We are faced now with a regime created not out of fraudulent elections but one which is illegal and unconstitutional”

GECOM’s requirement of a minimum period of 148 days to hold elections is an admission of its incompetence

The purpose of this letter is to give a factual summary of the compliance or otherwise with the calling and holding of elections under the Constitution between 1997 and 2015. But before I do so, I have to express some sorrow for Yolanda Ward, Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Guyana Elections Commission, who in responding to a letter by a former Deputy Chief Election Officer, showed how much she has eaten her own words and has become part of the incompetence, duplicity and subservience of GECOM under James Patterson, the unconstitutionally imposed Chairman of a perennially divided GECOM.

I set out a history of the critical dates of those elections from information sourced from the records of the National Assembly below. 

(E) represents the number of days between the dissolution of Parliament and the date of elections.

Continue reading “GECOM’s requirement of a minimum period of 148 days to hold elections is an admission of its incompetence”

President Granger needs to stop the charade and call elections

It is now 70 days since the no-confidence motion was passed on December 21, 2018. That means that there are only 20 days remaining for the constitutionally prescribed period for holding elections. However, observing the pronouncements of President Granger and the Ministers of his Government and his appointees to GECOM, including the self-proclaimed non-paladin James Patterson, one has to be forgiven for believing that such elections are due at the earliest, 20 months from now. Minister Ramjattan loosely introduces the doctrine of necessity, seemingly oblivious to the more basic doctrine of constitutionality while his colleague, Attorney General Mr Basil Williams is reported in another section of the media as stating that the “Constitution is wrong.”

According to Mr Williams, it is GECOM’s duty and not that of the President to call elections. GECOM’s Chairman, on the other hand, claims that he is waiting on directions from the President to call elections and that in any case, GECOM does not have the funds to conduct those elections. Both statements demonstrate a remarkable level of ignorance or are clearly opportunistic and politically motivated, notwithstanding a statement made by one of the Attorneys-at-Law at the Court of Appeal Cases Management that the matters before that court were about the law. What the attorney did not state was that attorneys take their instructions from their clients, in this case the politicians, whose sole purpose and objective is to delay the holding of elections. This is not about the law – it is plain lawlessness.

Continue reading “President Granger needs to stop the charade and call elections”

Mr Norton voted in favour of the bill on Article 161

Discretion, if not wisdom, suggests to any public official who mis-cites himself, misrepresents the facts on which he makes false claims, accuses others of amnesia and of stupidity, that at the very least, he should just stay silent, if not apologise. Expressed another way is the rule that when you are in a hole, you stop digging. Mr. Aubrey Norton seems unfamiliar with these common sense principles.

In his letter in the Stabroek News of yesterday’s date, Mr. Norton describes as “the summit of stupidity”, the question by attorney-at-law, Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, on how he, Norton voted on the constitutional amendment to article 161 in 2000. Mr. Norton goes on to lecture Mr. Ramkarran that “you don’t vote in such circumstances—the Speaker merely notes that the ayes have it.” Continue reading “Mr Norton voted in favour of the bill on Article 161”

Mr Norton was wrong about the date of the GECOM proviso

The debate on the interpretation of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution has continued, with increased intensity, following the rejection of lists of eighteen persons named by the Leader of the Opposition and the unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson by President Granger. Unfortunately some writers have made claims that are at best incomplete, or are otherwise unsupported by facts.

Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye, WPA executive member in another section of the print media refers to Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine’s advocacy at the level of the WPA Executive of the “need to revisit the Carter formula” and that Roopnaraine had reminded the Executive “that the Carter Model was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it had outlived its usefulness.” Former General Secretary of the PNC and member of Parliament and now Government functionary, Mr. Aubrey Norton, seeking to justify the President’s unilateral decision, writes that “Jagdeo and PPP laid basis to move away from Carter Formula and it has come back to haunt them”, a claim challenged by Mr. Kamal Ramkarran in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. Perhaps a little bit of history of the Constitution and the Elections Commission will help. Continue reading “Mr Norton was wrong about the date of the GECOM proviso”