CONCRETE evidence to support the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) contention of irregularities in the electoral process was not provided to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), according to one of its Commissioners, Mr Vincent Alexander.In a letter to the press, he said, “It is true that the PPP/C sought to question approximately 34 Statements of Poll (SoPs) in the case of District 4, but in no instance did they present original statements of polls as the basis for their contention.

“They presented a spreadsheet, which purportedly reflected the statements of polls in the PPPC`s possession. In the specific case of District 4, they made those objections on Thursday through Friday (May 14 and 15) and were requested to produce the evidence by Saturday, May 16. They returned to the verification process on May 16 without the original Statements of Polls, thus leaving the RO with no alternative, but make the declaration since the objection was not based on concrete evidence.”
Alexander’s letter follows a statement signed by three GECOM Commissioners – Mohamood Shaw, Athmaram Mangar and Sase Gunraj – who detailed several attempts to have a number of irregularities discovered in the electoral process addressed, attempts they contended proved futile.
PROCESS EXPLAINED
In detailing the process of a final declaration of election results, he explained that, “[Some] 2299 results were to be determined at the places of poll and documented on statements of poll, copies of which were to be made available, immediately after the count, to the Presiding Officer, the Assistant Presiding Officer, the Counting Officer and the parties’ agents. Also, a copy was to be posted outside of the related polling station and enveloped copies sent to the Returning Officer (RO) via the Deputy Returning Officer and likewise a copy sent to the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Mr Keith Lowenfield.
“…two parallel counts were to be conducted: a count at the level of each RO, for the purpose of 10 district/regional/constituency declarations and a count by the Information Technology (IT) unit after the statements bound for the CEO would have been delivered to GECOM, signed off on by at least two present Commissioners and transmitted to IT for tabulation, after which they should have been transmitted to the CEO`s office for custodial purposes.
“The CEO informed the Commission of his intention to conduct an independent tabulation, once the statements were delivered to his office, thus allowing him a comparator relative to the IT tabulation and the eventually submitted 10 declarations. The 10 declarations were to be used as the bases for the CEO`s summative count; the calculation of the allocation of seats; and the presentation of a report to the Commission, for its approval, prior to the final declaration of results and allocation of seats.
On these bases,Alexander refuted claims that there were material irregularities in the system.
“I am verily informed that this process was followed and am unaware of any complaint in that regard, from any quarter. The most critical point to note is that the three most relevant authorities (ROs, the CEO and the parties) should have been in possession of the original and identical statements of poll,” he said.

FAKE SoPs DISCOVERED
On the question of the discovery of falsified SoPs, Alexander explained that it was the Chief Elections Officer who made the discovery and took measures to address the problem.
He said, “Those statements were supposedly received, opened and recorded by Logistics; were signed off on by Commissioners; and data entered by IT before being delivered to the CEO. The CEO discovered documents that were not original documents. He also observed a disparity with the results on those documents as well as he observed some statements on which the votes cast were in excess of the divisional electoral rolls…on one hand, it was decided that he would abandon the use of statements of poll.
“…in relation to what actually occurred, there has been no evidence or complaint that the statements of poll, which were delivered to the ROs, were corrupted. Each RO conducted a verification that involved the political parties and in no instance did the statements of poll used by the RO and those in the possession of the parties not correspond.
…GECOM verified that it had not used the falsified results and that there was no difference between what GECOM used and what was recorded on the statements of poll presented by the PPP/C.”
IMMATERIAL TO DECLARATION
Notably, the PPP/C, in addition to the falsified SoPs, have raised objections to the refusal of GECOM to have public vetting of polling-day staffers, many of whom were discovered to be activists of the political Opposition; misdirection by some GECOM staffers who advised voters; damaged stamps that saw some ballots not being properly stamped; the fact that persons without identification cards were allowed to vote, even though their images did not match those in the files of GECOM staff; and denying proxy holders the use of their proxies, among others.

Recounts were requested before and after the official declarations were made, but these were rejected. Also denied was the PPP/C request for the SoPs, Tally Sheets and a breakdown of results of each Polling Division or ballot boxes.
Additionally, on May 20, Gunraj wrote in his capacity as a GECOM Commissioner, to Mr Lowenfield to request several things, including the:
* 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.
According to him, the Chief Elections Officer responded the next day, May 21. “The Chief Elections Officer acknowledges receipt of the correspondence and stated that he requires the consent of the Commission to release the requested information,” the Commissioner said.
However, according to Alexander, these requests made are “immaterial” to the declaration of the 2015 election results.
“It should also be noted that the information requested on May 20th is immaterial to the declaration…for all intents and purposes, the CEO produced electronic results based on the uncorrupted and verified information, which he obtained from the ROs; and the manual report in the form of the actual district reports,” he declared.
GO TO COURT
All considered, he advised that the PPP/C move to the courts to raise its objections.
“The PPP/C or, as a matter of fact, any contestant has only one recourse at this time, which is to the court,” Alexander said.
The PPP/C is currently compiling documentation to support the filing of an election petition to challenge the 2015 election results in the High Court.

By Vanessa Narine