Dear Editor,
I AM deeply troubled by what appears to be an attempt to blatantly breach the laws of Guyana in an effort to ‘cure’ what appears to have been determined by public opinion, rather than a court of law, to have been breaches of the laws of Guyana.

The Guyanese public was first made aware by way of a press statement by the Honourable Mia Motley, Prime Minister of Barbados that President Granger and Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, Leader of the Oppsoition, have agreed to a recount of votes of all 10 regions.
Article 161B of the Constitution of Guyana states:

“It is hereby declared that the role of political parties and their nominees in the conduct of elections by the Elections Commissions shall be limited to their participation in determining policy, monitoring the electoral process and the conduct of the election, but does not include active management of the electoral process.”

The Representation of People Act Cap. 1:03 makes specific provision for the persons who can request a recount, the person to whom the request shall be made and who has the power to determine whether to permit a recount. Section 88 of the Act states:
“88. A duly appointed candidate, or counting agent present when the counting or any recount of votes is completed, may request the returning officer to have the votes recounted or again recounted; but the returning officer may refuse such request if in his opinion it is unreasonable.”

It is therefore the Returning Officer who is vested with the power to determine whether to permit a recount.

While perhaps well intentioned, I am unable to ascertain the basis in law for any agreement between President Granger and Mr Jagdeo with respect to the recounting of votes. There is no order by any court directing the Returning Officers to carry out a recount.
I am perplexed as to the basis upon which Justice (Rtd) Claudette Singh, a former judge of the Court of Appeal and Chairman of the Elections Commission could lawfully have given the “undertaking” she allege she gave to the court regarding a recount. Such an undertaking has no basis in law since she is not the person vested by law with the power to determine whether or not to permit a recount. Yet, somehow, Justice Singh has elevated this “undertaking” to something that has the force of law which binds her to do what she has no statutory power to do.

It appears to me that this approach, rather than providing a sensible and lawful path forward, will only serve to exacerbate and further complicate the current crisis. It is unlikely that any court would uphold a political agreement for a recount or a request for a recount by persons not permitted to request a recount.

Neither Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act 2000 nor Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution gives the Commission of GECOM the power to override the specific provision of Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act.
Any recount must be done by lawful means and not by breaching the laws of Guyana. Throwing aside our laws for political expediency will have far reaching and long lasting consequences.

It is most interesting that some of the same persons who are screaming the loudest about unlawful action are prepared to engage in equally unlawful actions to achieve their desired objectives. The silence of persons and organisations who hold themselves out as being guardians of the law is deafening. Where is the Bar Association on this issue?
Their silence screams for all to hear!

Regards,
M. Pratt