COMMISSIONERS of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) have not met since May 16, even though there are pressing issues they need to address regarding conduct of the 2015 General and Regional Elections, the results of which are being challenged by the ousted People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

Three GECOM Commissioners — Mohamood Shaw, Athmaram Mangar and Sase Gunraj — yesterday released a statement detailing several futile attempts they had made to have addressed a number of irregularities discovered in the electoral process.

FALSE SOPS

Those Commissioners say the first meeting was convened on May 13 to address the discovery of falsified Statements of Poll (SoPs) within GECOM. That was after the nation had voted on May 11.

“Prior to the announcement of preliminary results of the said elections, the Chief Elections Officer, aforesaid, disclosed that it goes against his conscience to disclose the results in his possession (for a number of reasons),” the three Commissioners said. Those reasons included variances in the data contained in the Statements of Poll within his possession and those in the possession of the Returning Officers of the respective electoral districts.

Another troubling development was that the number of votes cast, as recorded on some of the Statements of Poll in his possession, far exceeded the number of electors on the Official List of Electors for the corresponding division.

The commissioners said the meeting addressed the fact that the layout of some of the Statements of Poll that were received by the Chief Elections Officer differed from that officially issued by the Guyana Elections Commission.

This view was allegedly shared by several members of the Commission, who recalled observing several different Statements of Poll coming in to Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield.

This development allegedly led to the Commission believing that fraudulent Statements of Poll had been inserted into the GECOM machinery, and were eventually used in tabulating the final results of the elections.

The three commissioners say it was unanimously agreed at the said meeting that the Chief Elections Officer would not use any Statement of Poll he deems irregular to compile preliminary results for public release. As such, the CEO, on the evening of May 13, did not release the results of 490 polling stations, which led to the conclusion that those were affected by the irregularities discovered.

On the 14th day of May, 2015, the said Chief Elections Officer made a public announcement of the irregularities disclosed at the meeting of the previous day, and disclosed that those irregularities had affected ‘many’ Statements of Poll. This information was reiterated by the Chairman of the Commission, who was also present at the said press conference, the three Commissioners highlighted.

On that basis, they lament, and notwithstanding his public disclosures, the Chief Elections Officer proceeded to announce the preliminary results of all 2,299 polling stations across the country.

CALLS TO GECOM

Two days later, on May 15, a delegation from the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) met with the Commission to discuss several irregularities discovered, provided a sample of 22 SoPs, and requested that the corresponding ballot boxes be opened to verify their results.

The Commissioners reported that although GECOM Chairman Dr Steve Surujbally had undertaken to verify these results by opening the 22 ballot boxes, this was not done.

“This position was later recanted at a meeting of the Commission that continued immediately after the departure of the (PPP/C) delegation,” the three GECOM Commissioners said.

The Commissioners disclosed that they consequently called for several steps to be taken, including release of information related to the following:

* What steps, if any, were taken by the Chief Elections Officer to ascertain the authenticity of the information contained in all the Statements of Poll within his possession

* The total number of Statements of Poll affected by the irregularities

* What steps, if any, were taken to correct the discrepancies as aforesaid; and
* The extent to which the discrepancies affected the overall results of the said elections.

However, the three commissioners said, this was not done as at May 16. “At a meeting of the Commission specially convened to receive and, if appropriate, ratify the results of the said elections, the said Chief Elections Officer refused and/or neglected to provide to the Commission the requested information,” the commissioners charge.

NOT LAWFUL
At the same meeting of the full Commission, six commissioners and the Chairman were presented with the official declarations of the Returning Officers of each of the 10 Electoral Districts of Guyana, as well as two spreadsheets containing the results of the Regional and General Elections – both under the hand of Mr Lowenfield.

“The results were not presented in a manual form, as is also required by law,” the Commissioners said.

They added: “Upon our request, a copy of the report of the Information Technology Department, which was tasked with encoding and tabulating data contained in Statements of Poll from all of the Electoral Divisions across Guyana, was provided. The report from the Information Technology Department differed significantly from the spreadsheets presented by the Chief Elections Officer, and the Chairman withdrew the said report”.

The “glaring inconsistencies and the absence of satisfactory explanations”, they said, resulted in them voting against the final declaration being made by the Chief Elections Officer.

“We were left no option but to vote against the declaration and publication of the said results by the Commission. The other three members of the Commission, along with the Chairman, then voted in favour of the said declaration and publication of the said results,” the Commissioners said.

NO CONSENT
Subsequently, on May 20, Gunraj, in his capacity as a GECOM Commissioner, wrote to Mr Lowenfield requesting several things, including the following:

* Results from each Electoral District, disaggregated by Polling Division, as compiled by the Chief Elections Officer

* Results from each Electoral District, disaggregated by Polling Division, as compiled by the Returning Officer of each Electoral District

* Report from the Information Technology Department, disaggregated by polling station

* Photocopies and/or electronic copies of Statements of Poll of each polling station, as submitted to the Chief Elections Officer; and

* Photocopies and/or electronic copies of Statements of Poll of each polling station, as submitted to the Returning Officer of each Electoral District.
The commissioners say the Chief Elections Officer responded the next day, May 21. His response was: “The Chief Elections Officer acknowledging receipt of the correspondence and stated that he requires the consent of the Commission to release the requested information,” the commissioners say.

It is worthy to note, they say, that the information requested is the same information that is normally made available to all Commissioners in every past election.

 
By Vanessa Narine