— AG reiterates gov’t does not conduct elections

IN upholding Guyana’s Constitution, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) rightly declared that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is the constitutional institution responsible for the conduct of elections in Guyana, Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams said as he reflected on the CCJ’s rulings.

Last Friday, the CCJ rejected an invitation by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to issue coercive orders, or a detailed directive instructing President David Granger to name a date for elections within three months from the date of its June 18 ruling.

In a recent interview, the Attorney-General explained that the power to proclaim a date for elections is vested in the President under the Constitution of Guyana. That date, he further explained, is set, based on the advice of GECOM.

He further explained that the Constitution, which is based on recommendations arising from a 1980 referendum, gives GECOM the exclusive remit to conduct elections and national registration in Guyana.

The Elections Commission, the Attorney- General emphasised, must indicate when it would be in a position to conduct credible elections. He noted, that the CCJ, in issuing its declarations last Friday following its validation of the No-Confidence Motion against the Government, expects GECOM to carry out its functions and responsibilities with integrity.

Ahead of the delivery of the consequential orders, the Attorney-General, in a written submission, pointed out that GECOM, by its own admission, is in no position to facilitate elections within three months.

The Elections Commission has advised the CCJ that it would be in a position to facilitate elections after December 25, 2019, by which time its Official List of Electors would be compiled.

That list, according to a decision of the Commission, is being produced through a process of House-to-House Registration. The Opposition, however, is demanding that the Elections Commission utilises a list that expired on April 30, 2019.

“On 24th July, 2018, the entire Commission unanimously decided that house-to-house registration was to be held in 2019 in preparation for the next General and Regional elections, which were not due until 2020. The request for the appropriation of funds to conduct house-to-house registration in 2019 was placed before Parliament on 19th November, 2018,” the Attorney-General explained to the Court.

The preparations for house-to-house registration had commenced, but among other challenges, the process is now at a standstill now that the Elections Commission is without a Chairman.

“This Court has held that the appointment of Justice Patterson as Chairman of GECOM was unconstitutional. This is a matter of consequential legal significance, because GECOM is not properly constituted without a chairman. The requirement for a chairman of GECOM is unique to all Commissions established by the Constitution. The appointment of a GECOM chair is subject to a mandatory constitutional process.

Until the President and the Leader of the Opposition complete that process, which is to be completed by them with dispatch, the work functioning of GECOM is affected. Put simply, it is submitted that unless and until a Chairman of GECOM is appointed, GECOM is constitutionally incapable of lawfully directing, supervising and administering the elections that are required to be held,” the Attorney-General outlined to the Court.

The process of appointing a new chairman was initiated days after the Court ruled that the appointment of Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson was flawed, however, that, too, is facing its own challenges.

President Granger has indicated that he is prepared to appoint a chairman of the Elections Commission today, if the Opposition Leader is prepared to act in a consensual manner, and in good faith. It is the Opposition Leader who must submit six nominees to the President that are not unacceptable to him (the President).

Both the President and Opposition Leader had agreed to a process that would result in a list that is not unacceptable to the President, based on the advice of the CCJ, but the Opposition Leader, according to the Government, has, thus far, acted in bad faith. He has since deviated from the process.