Dear Editor,
COMMISSIONERS representing the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) have embarked on a concerted plan to undermine the work of GECOM by raising in the public sphere, their versions of developments at meetings of the commission, whether they be statutory or special.

At the outset, I wish to state that the views expressed here represent my perception of the PPP-nominated commissioners’ versions of events, which in my opinion are characterised by half-truths, downright lies and deliberate misrepresentation of what actually takes place at meetings of the commission.

I believe that the primary reasons for these so-called revelations, which have nothing to do with setting the records straight, are intended (1) to undermine confidence in both the Chairman, Hon. Justice (retired) James Patterson and Commissioner of Registration/Chief Election Officer, Keith Lowenfield, which will result in the CEO being removed and in the case of the chairman, pressuring him to offer his resignation; and (2) to have them replaced by persons amenable to the machinations of the PPP for the forthcoming 2020 General and Regional Elections and beyond.

To succeed in their quest, a well orchestrated campaign is being waged by the PPP to hold these two persons and the three commissioners not affiliated to the PPP, up to public ridicule. It is noticeable that from the moment Justice Patterson was announced as Chairman of GECOM by President David Granger, there have been a number of vicious attacks, led by the PPP, on his person. Accompanying these attacks, again led by the PPP, are the allegations that his appointment to the position is intended to lay the foundation for the rigging of the 2020 elections. These allegations are not directed exclusively to Justice Patterson, but also include the CEO Keith Lowenfield and those commissioners at GECOM whom they refer to as PNC and WPA commissioners- Charles Corbin, Vincent Alexander and Desmond Trotman. The three named commissioners have made it very clear that they do not represent any political party on the commission, but are members of a constitutional body. However, in spite of the assurances by the three commissioners, the allegations continue unabated.

Fear for safety of GECOM chair
A point to note is that because of the perverse and vicious nature of the campaign to unseat Justice Patterson, I am using this opportunity to publicly express my fears for his safety. It cannot be ruled out, particularly when it is realised that the campaign against him is led by no less a person than the leader of the opposition, that some misguided member/s of the PPP may construe this to mean that they now have licence to plan and carry out acts of violence against his person, although this may not be what Mr. Jagdeo intends to happen. However, I want to use this opportunity to call on the authorities to take note of the developments and try to ensure as far as possible, any danger which may be posed to Justice Patterson’s person as a result of the venomous nature of the attacks on him can be averted.

I hold no brief for commissioners Corbin and Alexander, who are long-standing members of the commission capable of presenting their views of what is taking place on the commission. However, I believe it is only fair to them for me to acknowledge some pertinent facts: both of these men have been known to take highly principled positions in the past and currently, on matters critical to GECOM’s existence. Additionally, were it not for the intervention of Commissioner Alexander at the 2011 General and Regional Elections, which led to the retraction of an attempt to impose a fraudulent result on the populace by the then Chief Election Officer, Guyana could well have been embroiled in serious disruptions with dire consequences to the nation at that time.

While it is true that I am the commission’s most recent appointee, I arrived there with a track record which few can equal or fault. It is therefore in a situation where the allegations accusing me of working ‘to rig the 2020 elections’ are being repeated ad nauseam, I am now issuing a challenge to all of the present PPP commissioners on GECOM to prove that any or all of them have been more consistently involved in the struggle for free and fair elections in Guyana than I have been, for the past 40 years.

Attacks intensified
The attacks on GECOM’s chairman intensified during the period when the Administration and Finance Committee of the commission, acting on instructions from the commission, began a process of interviewing and recommending to the full commission, persons to be considered for employment for certain positions within the commission’s staff structure.
The sub-committee comprised four commissioners: Vincent Alexander and Bibi Shadick as joint chairpersons and Robeson Benn and Desmond Trotman. Its work is being facilitated by the presence of the CEO and the Admin and HR managers, who are there in non-voting capacities. Prior to the sub-committee commencing its work, a decision was unanimously taken at a meeting of the full commission on how the recommendations from the sub-committee would be addressed by that body. For the benefit of the public, let me state here that in arriving at its unanimous decision on how the recommendations coming from the sub-committee are to be addressed, the members of the commission took into consideration that there could be disagreements in the sub-committee, hence, the need for a format to resolve any such situation.

Applicants, in keeping with the published academic and other criteria, which were revised after the initial advertisements, were shortlisted by HR and invited to be present for interviews on specified dates and time.

To date, only interviews for four positions have been done and the relevant recommendations made to the full commission. In two of the positions — legal officer and deputy chief election officer — there were disagreements on filling the positions.
In the case of the legal officer, one of the applicants, an overseas-based Afro-Guyanese, was the lone candidate interviewed. He had excellent qualifications, was admitted to the bar in Guyana and other Caribbean countries and enjoyed active practice in the USA. He was very impressive in the interviewing session. In the post-interviewing session, Commissioner Shadick said she was highly impressed both with his qualifications and conduct during the interview and would have scored him 100, except for the fact that he had no experience practising in the local courts. She indicated that she would not provide him with a score and objected to him being recommended as a result of his lack of experience in the courts in Guyana. Commissioner Benn attempted to have the candidate disqualified on a spurious allegation, which, not unusual for him, he could not prove.
Both Commissioner Alexander and I supported the applicant’s candidacy on the basis of his qualifications and conduct during the interview. We also felt that the fact of him being admitted to practise in the courts of Guyana and the Caribbean with a period of practice in Trinidad and Tobago, indicated that he had fulfilled all of the criteria, as advertised, for appointment to the position.

At the level of the plenary, Commissioner Sase Gunraj supported the PPP commissioners, while Commissioner Charles Corbin supported the position advocated by Commissioner Alexander and I. The chairman voted with the PPP Commissioners and additionally, supported a proposal from Commissioner Shadick that the position should be revisited to allow for consideration of candidates who possessed the Legal Education Certificate, but were not shortlisted because they did not possess post-graduate qualifications. That proposal was acted on and a legal officer acceptable to all but Commissioner Benn, was selected.

I do not propose to go into details on what transpired when interviews were conducted for the position of deputy chief elections officer, except to say that the agreed formula was followed. There were disagreements on who should be appointed; this went before the full commission, transcripts of both candidates were shown to those commissioners – Justice Patterson, Sase Gunraj and Charles Corbin — who were not members of the sub-committee. Commissioners Gunraj and Corbin expressed their choice of preferred candidates and the chairman requested time to consider the matter. At the commission’s statutory meeting on June 12th, 2018, the chairman announced his support for Ms. Roxanne Myers’ candidacy. Then all hell broke loose.

The PPP commissioners in reacting to the chairman’s announcement of support for Ms. Myers, proceeded to launch a vitriolic attack on his person. In their attempts to make a case (in the public domain) against the chairman and other members of the commission that the matter of the DCEO’s appointment was based only on ethnic considerations, the PPP commissioners failed to point out to the ERC that the chairman supported their objection to the recommendation to appoint an African- Guyanese to the position of legal officer.

The same PPP Commissioner failed to point out to the ERC Investigators that the Chairman offered no objection to the recommendation for Mr. Aneal Giddings, an Indian Guyanese, to be appointed to one of the most important positions at GECOM, that is, the position of Information Technology Manager. These same PPP Commissioners failed to point out to the ERC that Commissioner Desmond Trotman made it clear to an African Guyanese candidate that based on his poor showing during the interviews, his (Commissioner Trotman’s) conscience prevented him from proposing his candidacy for the position.

These same PPP commissioners failed to point out to the ERC that they felt I was too harsh to the candidate at reference. I replied by telling them that I was there to ensure that only the best candidates would succeed but, since they were upset by my statement to the candidate, I would desist from doing so; but I was also putting commissioners on notice that I will be carefully scrutinising each candidate– whoever he or she may be– and will be harsh in my scoring, once they do not measure up to what I believe are the required standards for the positions for which they have applied.

These same PPP commissioners failed to disclose to members of the ERC that in two instances, Commissioner Desmond Trotman failed to score two African-Guyanese candidates, one of whom had applied for the position of DCEO and without being asked, volunteered the information that they had actively campaigned for one of the large political parties, the PNC, in past elections.

Let me make it clear that at no time during the interviews any candidate was asked which political party he or she supported. I believe that members of the sub-committee, with no exception, took it for granted that each candidate would have a preference for a political party; a person’s political choice was not and will never be a factor in my consideration of that person’s suitability for a position. It will only be factored into my thinking when it is expressed in a way that is intended to influence me to show preference for that person’s candidacy during the interviewing process. I will never bow to that kind of pressure being brought to bear on me. At all times during the exercise under review, my decision was based only on a candidate’s suitability for a position. I believe my fellow Commissioner Alexander was similarly inclined.

If my memory of events is correct Commissioner Alexander himself at one of the post-interview sessions among commissioners, made the same point to the other commissioners. Remarkably, while the PPP commissioners felt that they could not score the offending candidates very high, they did not reciprocate our sentiments. I make this point to show the difference between the attitudes of Commissioner Alexander and me and that of Commissioners Shadick and Benn on matters of principle. Alexander and I were not afraid to incur the wrath of leaders of the political party, (including calls for our removal from GECOM) who may have felt aggrieved by what they believed were the discriminatory actions of two members of the interviewing panel. I believe PPP Commissioners Shadick and Benn would have felt no compulsion to take similar action, if the offending candidates were members of the PPP.

These same PPP commissioners failed to point out to the ERC investigators that their preferred candidate, because that is what he was in spite of what they may have said and continue to say, had benefited from the misrepresentation of his qualifications and misrepresented his role in a vital area of the commission’s work over a number of years.
These same PPP commissioners failed to say to the ERC investigators that when their preferred candidate was exposed as a stranger to the truth in a certain area, that Commissioner Shadick attempted to help him to save face by posing a carefully crafted question, which however did not help his cause.

These same commissioners, in making the claim of a commissioner awarding candidates maximum scores, failed to point out to the ERC investigators that it was Commissioner Shadick herself who first put that trend in motion and I followed her lead.
Commissioner Benn has on several occasions sought to make the point, unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence, that Afro-Guyanese comprise 90 per cent of GECOM’s staff complement. He has, when asked, bluntly refused to provide proof in support of his claim; and when the chairman provided evidence which contradicted him, he then changed his position to say that his reference was in relation to the senior staff employed at GECOM.
I applaud the actions of the chairman in respect of the contemptuous behaviour of the UNDP’s resident representative in Guyana, on the matter of an aspect of aid to improve the functioning of the IT department of GECOM. To put it mildly, her actions of violating established protocols on how matters of this nature are to be addressed were discourteous and insulting to the chairman and all of the commissioners of GECOM. In taking the stand he did, the chairman sought to dignify not himself, but the commission and all commissioners. It is unfortunate that instead of the PPP commissioners showing solidarity with the chairman on this matter, he has been subjected to further undeserved public criticisms from them.

Offering advice
I have been accused by Commissioner Shadick of offering advice to the chairman and defending him on occasions at the commission’s meetings. On both of these matters I plead guilty and unhesitatingly, refuse to apologise for acting as I did. The advice I offered to the chairman was in relation to him saying at a press conference that he was not averse to giving consideration to resigning from the commission. I said to him that so far the court in Guyana (at the time I was referring to the acting chief justice’s decision) had found that he was properly appointed and because the issue was being reviewed by the courts, he should allow the process to evolve. Subsequently, in light of Commissioner Shadick’s persistent demand to see his contract, giving as her reason to determine if his actions were legal, I responded by saying that he was sworn to carry out his functions in keeping with the constitution. I never said he could function without recourse to the commission. As I had said previously, it does not suit the purpose of the PPP commissioners to put the entire picture up for public scrutiny.

My defence of the chairman is against the spate of unjustified attacks directed at him by the PPP commissioners. I made it clear at a meeting of the commission that I was not prepared to sit by and allow this behaviour to go unchallenged.

I want to say to Commissioner Shadick and the other PPP Commissioners that my defence of the chairman is a natural response of mine to what I believe are unjustified, undeserved attacks on individuals. I now speak here to two such instances: the first occurred during Mrs. Janet Jagan’s presidency, when I was a guest on a call-in programme hosted by Mr. Sherwood Lowe and I had cause to admonish a caller for some derogatory remarks she had made about Mrs. Jagan. In the course of my response to the woman, I said to her that the President is entitled to protection under the law like every other citizen in the country. For a few days after my appearance on that programme, I got a lot of flak from some members of the public who said they expected better from me. I however stood my ground; and I recall that at least one leader of the PNC, Ms. Debbie Backer, congratulating me for the position I took.

The second occasion was in relation to something that had occurred during Bharrat Jagdeo’s first term as President of Guyana. At that time, Mark Benschop hosted a programme that was televised in Guyana; just prior to closing one of his segments, he said: “Last night the President of Guyana was seen in a gay bar in Trinidad.” I felt the comment was unjustified, vindictive and spiteful and was intended to hold Jagdeo up to public ridicule. Feeling as strongly as I did on the matter, I wrote a letter, which was carried by Stabroek News, condemning the remarks as “gutter journalism of the worst kind.” Following the public exposure of the letter, an angry Mark Benschop called me, threatening that if I did not recant my remarks he would sue me for libel. My response to Mark was that I was sure he had recorded the programme and advised him to listen to what was said and if after he was done, he still felt he was libeled, then we would meet in court. Nothing happened. There was no court action. Perhaps Mark felt that in my impoverished state there was no way he would have been able to collect awarded damages if he had won. But maybe, just maybe, he might have thought that it was in his best interest to allow the matter to die. Needless to say, Mark never spoke to me for a lengthy period.

This matter of coming to people’s defence is part of my upbringing and was instilled in me by my mother, who, even though she brought up her children in impoverished conditions, felt it was important for them to inculcate certain principles of behaviour. Those early lessons were reiterated when I became a member of the WPA and came under the influence of people like Eusi Kwayana, Clive Thomas, Rupert Roopnaraine, Walter Rodney, Tacuma Ogunseye, Andaiye, Karen De Souza, Rohit Kanhai, David Hinds, Mike Henderson and a host of others too numerous to mention here. I have been cultured in this way and believe I am a better person for it. Because I hold the view that Commssioners Shadick and Robeson Benn have not been similarly steeped in this tradition, anyone functioning in this manner is seen by them to be doing something that is fundamentally wrong and unacceptable.

Time may help them to see things in a different light.

Regards
Desmond Trotman
GECOM Commissioner