– says will always strive to honour duties without fear, favour or bias
THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) said it is  fully committed to conform to the spirit of the National Registration (Amendment) Act 2011, Act No. 16 of 2011. Accordingly, Dr. Steve Surujbally, Chairman of GECOM sent an electronic list of the names of all of the persons who had applied for registration after the enactment of this piece of legislation.  According to GECOM’s Public Relations Officer, the list was sent with a covering letter dated (Wednesday) August 17, 2011.

Persaud said the GECOM Chairman’s actions in dispatching the List was in compliance with Clause 14(2) of the National Registration (Amendment) Act 2011, Act No. 16 of 2011, which requires that, “The Commissioner shall make available to all registered Political Parties the names of all eligible Electors registered subsequent to the enactment of this amendment.”

In the letter, Dr. Surujbally explained that the enclosed electronic document contained the names of persons who have applied for registration after the enactment of the Amendment. He noted that the procedure to establish which of the persons included in the list who were eligible for registration was, at that point in time, still in progress, since the Fingerprint Cross Matching exercise was currently being conducted and the consequential analyses pertaining thereto had yet to be carried out.

Further, he pointed out that the final list of names, in compliance with the legislation, can only be issued after the eligibility of the applicants has been formally established.

Dr. Surujbally emphasized that the list of names represents the persons who have applied for registration, and is therefore provisional. He gave the assurance that GECOM will provide further notification as soon as the eligibility of the applicants has been ascertained.

Persaud also noted that, on Thursday, August 18, 2011, the GECOM Chairman received a letter dated 18th August, 2011 from Mr. Oscar Clarke, General Secretary of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) acknowledging that the information provided by GECOM “may” be in conformity with the law, but that the party could not use the data without the respective addresses.

Consequently,    Dr. Surujbally replied by way of a letter dated August 19, 2011, wherein he reminded that he had pointed out that the list which he had dispatched on 17th August, 2011 was preliminary.

Further, a CD with the Alpha List of New Registrants from Phase 2 of the Claims and Objections exercise, and containing the relevant address fields accompanied GECOM’s letter of August 19, 2011.  Persaud said “this CD was also sent simultaneously to ALL of the other Parliamentary Political Parties”.

Persaud said it was quite inexplicable therefore, to be informed via the media that (i) the PNCR was accusing GECOM of being reluctant to provide Opposition Parties with full particulars of applicants for registration in recently concluded phase two of Claims and Objections, and that (ii) that Party was concluding that the Chairman and the CEO of GECOM do not feel obligated to respond positively to the legitimate requests of the PNCR and other Opposition Parties.
“As can be seen from the above, nothing could be further from the truth,” Persaud posited.

“Finally, GECOM takes this opportunity to give the total assurance that the Chairman, the Chief Election Officer and every Member of the Senior Staff of the Secretariat are fully aware of their statutory and administrative responsibilities and will always strive to honour their duties without fear, favour or bias,” Persaud added.