Dear Editor,
AS a rule, I try to avoid being personal in public polemics since doing otherwise can open the door to character assassination. I ask forgiveness if I appear to readers to digress here from my stated principled position because of the unfounded attacks on certain named persons by the writer whose missive I am responding to herein this letter. To all appearances, prolific letter writer Nigel Hinds is not a contributor to this principle. His several letters since the start of the election crisis have been very personal to the extent at being obnoxious. His most recent letter that was published in Stabroek News (SN) on April 22, 2020, under the caption, ìJustice Singh must use her constitutional powers to finalize Region four tabulation and bring this crisis to an endî: is yet another in the same vein. My patience with him has ended, I have lost any vestige of respect which I had for him as a serious political person.

Editor, before I continue let me restate for readers my position in relation to the political struggle in the country. I have often contended that citizens have the right to fight for their political views and interest and to have their votes counted fairly. Hence Hindsí letters have the right to propagate his views, misguided as they may be, and in the process fight for his convictions. Where I part company with him is the way he used the letter column to engages in vicious personal attacks bordering on character assassination of his chosen victims.

His letter referred to above contained very deliberate personal attacks on GECOMís Chairman, (Retíd) Appellate Justice Claudette Singh, Commissioners Vincent Alexander, Desmond Trotman and Charles Corbin. To support my point of view, I will quote just two examples of his utterances, ì One assumes that thoughts and feelings must torture the Chairperson on a daily basis, through her conscience,î and, ìThe cries of Commissioner Vincent Alexander must be ignored, the shameful and disgraceful echoing of Alexander by the other two commissioners representing PNC-APNU, namely Trotman and Corbin, must also be disregarded.î

Editor, elections and democracy are processes, not events. The 2020 election process saw Nigel Hinds committing political suicide when he deliberately set out to deceive the nation on his eligibility to contest the elections. This so-called advocate of democracy, constitutionality and legality, who now demands much from GECOMís Chair, knew that the courts had ruled on the issue of dual citizenship long before nomination day, and in spite of being aware of the ground rules he set out to fool the populace by pretending he had fulfilled all of the requirements which allowed him to participate in the elections as the Prime Ministerial Candidate for his party ìChange Guyanaî. He did so fully aware that he had failed to and had never intended to take the steps to renounce his foreign citizenship, in a manner similar and consistent with the actions of those government ministers against whom he regularly offers criticisms for what he refers to as their undemocratic behaviour.
This ìclown princeî who lays claim to be recognized in Guyana as a defender of democratic norms, upholder of the rule of law and citizens constitutional and legal rights has proven to be nothing but a hypocritic of the worst kind and it is very likely in a court of law he would be deemed as being guilty of criminal misconduct. What was more distressing is that he continued in his posture as a ìChampion of the rights of Guyaneseî even after demonstrating, just before Nomination Day, where his loyalties reside. When he refused to relinquish his US citizenship when the opportunity presented itself for him to do so, he declared that his loyalty is to the government of the United States of America and not to Guyana and the people of Guyana. The question being asked in political circles is whether he is a self a pointed agent provocateur (of the US) working to end the David Granger administration?

Being a member of the APNUís leadership and a candidate for APUN+AFC in the 2020 General and Regional Elections, objectively I have a partisan interest in the outcome of the elections. But at the same time, I try as best as I can to put country and the Guyanese peoplesí interest above my personal and partisan interest. This is the challenge the unfortunate election crisis pose to all of us – citizens, activists and political leaders – to act responsibly in the best interest of the nation. While knowing which party won the elections is important, we have a duty to the country to ensure that after the results are officially declared, we have a political solution that can keep the nation together. Our contemporary experience has shown us how close we had come to a ìfailed stateî under the PPPC rule that produced a criminalised state. We often overlook the fact that this took place after consecutive election victories for the PPPC and under our ìgreat democracyî.

We may not want to concede the grim reality that whichever party wins the elections, in the context of oil, and the 23 years of PPPC political domination, and the growing tension and anxiety since the close of the polls, which is partly muted by the coronavirus pandemic: we in Guyana, are seemingly drifting in uncharted waters. None of us can predict the outcome with certainty. But our recent history is pointing us in the direction of a failed state.
Having said the above it will be remiss of me not to point out and to commend the two leaders for their handling of the crisis, to date. Objectively, the actions of either leader would have pushed us over the brink. It is in this context the agreement that was reached between the President and the Opposition Leader for GECOM, to conduct in the presence of a CARICOM High-Level Team, representatives of political parties that contested the March 2, 2020, General and Regional elections, international and local observers, a supervised recount of the votes cast in all 10 electoral districts to ascertain the credibility of the election results: has been significant political progress in resolving the election crisis. It is important to note that while the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for GECOM to proceed with the recount as it was originally envisaged, the decision of the two leaders to agree to find a workable solution to the problem was and is still important politically. Its political value was and is still tremendous. It underscored the fact that at a time of a profound national crisis, two national leaders, acting in consort set out to assure the nation of their desire to have a peaceful resolution, that is acceptable to all sides of the political/racial divide, of the crisis.

It is in the pursuance of the above objective that the decision by GECOM to have a recount and audit of the elections in all ten regions must be appreciated. Since, as matters stand, it is the only sensible and workable option that is open to the nation. My reading of Justice Claudette Singhís actions to date is that she has resisted pressures from several quarters, local and international, which sought to get her to act in a purely partisan manner. I believe her actions are firmly rooted in what she believes is the law and in the interest of the people of Guyana and GECOM.
Nigel Hinds will disagree with my judgement and it is his right to do so. I am also invoking my right to challenge his posture of having a genuine interest in the well-being of the Guyanese people ñ coronavirus notwithstanding. He seems to be promoting himself for favourable consideration by Jagdeo and the PPPC. This explains why he has a myopic view of the conduct of GECOMís Chairmanís handling of issues in the Commission. And of Alexanderís, Trotmanís and Corbinís responsible actions as Commissioners. Hinds is unable to comprehend that to the extent there is commonality at times between those commissioners mentioned above and the Chair, maybe it is because their ideas are generally more helpful to the work of the Commission than those of the PPPCís Commissioners. The PPPCës commissioners partisan political behaviour and their style of indirect and direct threats in and out of the commission have proven counterproductive. Mr Hinds, they only have themselves to blame. Both you and the PPPC need to engage in self-criticism on this matter.

As a contestant in the 2020 elections, it is inappropriate for me to tell Madam Chair how to act in this crisis. However, I feel comfortable to offer Justice Singh and GECOM my support to get the job done.
In concluding this response to Nigel Hinds without fair of contradiction, it is my considered opinion that the actions Justice Singh, Alexander, Trotman and Corbin in and out of the Commission have been more in the country interest than his reckless utterances.
Regards,
Tacuma Ogunseye