COMMISSIONER of Police Leslie James in a letter to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), has confirmed that 172 persons from a list of 207 were not in Guyana when the General and Regional Elections were held on March 2.

In response to claims by the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) that persons voted in the place of migrants, the Chair of the Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, in a letter on May 22, requested immigration records from the Police Commissioner as the Chief Immigration Officer. The names of 207 individuals were provided to the police commissioner based on a list submitted by APNU+AFC, and according to GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Yolanda Ward, a response was received on May 27, 2020.

“The response from the [Police] commissioner would have indicated that a 172 out of that 207 did not arrive or return to Guyana on or before the 2nd March,” Ward told reporters during a press conference outside the Arthur Chung Conference Centre – the venue for the national recount.

While the police commissioner has confirmed that more than 83 per cent of the persons listed were out of the jurisdiction, Ward was unable to confirm whether those persons’ names were marked off as having voted on polling day as alleged by the APNU+AFC.

“I would not be able to provide that detail,” the GECOM PRO said when pressed for answers. Asked whether the elections secretariat will retrieve the Official List of Electors (OLEs) to confirm or negate the claims of the APNU+AFC, Ward made it known that the issue is actively engaging the attention of the commission, and as such no decision has been made.

“The commission has not made a decision on the way forward on this matter; and I wouldn’t want to say that it (the OLE) is inaccessible; it is right behind the Arthur Chung Conference Centre,” Ward said, while iterating that the issue is still engaging the attention of the commission.

While GECOM’s PRO has indicated that a single list of 207 names was provided by the APNU+AFC on May 20, the coalition’s executive member Aubrey Norton had told reports last week that 600 names were provided to GECOM to support its claim that persons voted in the place of migrants. But those 600 names, according to the APNU+AFC, were part of a list of 1,200 plus names of persons, who were alleged to have voted on polling day but were out of the jurisdiction.

In addition to the 1,200 immigration-related cases, the APNU+AFC has cited over 800 additional cases in which it alleged that there were irregularities and discrepancies, including cases in which persons allegedly voted on behalf of the dead. These irregularities, the coalition has argued, have affected more than 90,000 votes and ought to be thoroughly investigated by the elections commission before the results of the March 2 elections are declared.

However, there has been much debate on whether or not the commission has the authority to request immigration records from the Immigration Department at this stage of the elections, and whether it can investigate the claims of electoral fraud being made by the ruling APNU+AFC.

While Article 162 empowers the commission to take necessary action to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the constitution and the electoral laws, the opposition, referencing Article 163, has maintained that only the High Court has jurisdiction to investigate cases of irregularities and or electoral fraud. The commission, whose members were nominated by both government and opposition, is sharply divided on the matter.

Elections Commissioner Vincent Alexander, who was nominated by the government, has argued that GECOM must address the irregularities which would form part of the Observation Report before a declaration is made, while maintaining that the commission has the authority to investigate these discrepancies.

Commissioner Sase Gunraj, who was nominated by the opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic, has however argued that GECOM has no jurisdiction to investigate the claims made by the APNU+AFC, on the grounds that such could only be addressed at the level of the High Court by way of an elections petition.

But Political Scientist Dr David Hinds, in an interview with the Guyana Chronicle, said that GECOM under the Constitution and Elections Law (Amendment) Act, has the authority to investigate the anomalies ahead of the declaration of results.

“If it could, as the court has said, look into the complaints about the tabulation of Region Four votes, then it can investigate and pronounce on other forms of inconsistencies,” Dr Hinds submitted, while underscoring the need for GECOM to facilitate a thorough investigation.

He said the discrepancies discovered thus far have already called into question the credibility of the March 2 elections.

“I think the irregularities uncovered thus far are enough to call into question the credibility of the elections. You simply cannot have a credible outcome if the process is as compromised as we are finding out. The numbers cannot be right if the process is wrong. It is as plain and clear as that,” the political scientist reasoned.

While dismissing claims that the recount is merely numerical, the political scientist said the primary purpose of the national recount is to determine the credibility of the elections, and as such, anomalies and discrepancies ought to be investigated.

“Was the electoral process a credible one? You can best determine that by a comprehensive look at how the electoral architecture was or was not manipulated by persons and forces entrusted with ensuring fairness,” he said, while noting that the recount itself is a very expansive investigation.

“So, you do not go through a recount and then at the end of the process say it’s not my duty to pronounce on what I find—leave it to a petition. GECOM cannot do investigation for the court—its investigation is to satisfy its own needs,” Dr. Hinds further stated.

He submitted that it is hypocritical to talk about democratic outcomes when the process is undemocratic.