Dear Editor
TO describe the conduct of the several International Elections Observer Mission teams, which had come to observe the March 02 national and regional elections, as professional, would be grossly misplaced, as well as undeserving. In fact, all the parties in this important category, both local and overseas, gathered for the March electoral exercise, sunk to a level of inexplicable and unprovoked bias, high prejudice and shameless partisanship, which had been a clear departure from the ODIHR’s Mandate for Election Observation, Handbook Rules which govern the operational conduct of these missions. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) provides support, assistance and expertise to participating states and civil society to promote democracy, the rule of law, human rights and tolerance and non-discrimination.

Surely, what had occurred during the presence of this now infamous and discredited collective, with a single exception, did not, in any way, synchronise with, or even came close to, or resembled in both spirit and the letter, the Handbook’s Rules for Election Observer Missions. A juxtaposition of the Observer Missions’ total pattern of behaviour, as against the rules, unfolds the total criminality of a group of personnel, who were not only desecrators of their own guiding principles, but which, in the conclusive process, really came to effect regime change.

•Rule one, which speaks of: ‘’Observers will maintain strict impartiality in the conduct of their duties and will at no time publicly express or exhibit any bias or preference in relation to national authorities, parties or candidates…”
Not only was this rule totally trampled upon, with its open and often gaping scenarios of international observer stakeholders, visiting the political party headquarters of the PPP/C opposition; mission heads who had been the house guest of the leader of the opposition, and was even seen in the company of the opposition leader at one of his party’s political rallies – but totally thrown in the waste basket, because of the dismissive manner in which it had been broken.

• Rule two, which states: “Observers will undertake their duties in an unobtrusive manner and will not interfere in the electoral process. Observers may raise questions with election officials…but they must not give instructions or countermand their decisions.’’
This particular rule became the ugly face of the international observer missions, crudely overstepping their own bounds of conduct, DURING THE POST- BALLOTING PROCESS WHEN, THEY, along with their local counterparts, and led by the opposition PPP/C AND THEIR ARMED THUGS, INVADED THE GECOM COMMAND CENTRE, BECOMING OPENLY INVOLVED IN THE HARASSMENT, THREATENING AND INTIMIDATION OF ELECTORAL STAFF PERFORMING THE CRITICAL PROCESS OF VOTER TABULATION; BEING PRESENT WHEN THE DOOR TO THE OFFICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BODY WAS BROKEN DOWN, WITH THE PHYSICAL PERSON OF THE CHAIRPERSON BECOMING THREATENED. IN FACT, THEIR PRESENCE, DELIBERATE, AND A PARTY TO THE CONTRIVANCE OF THE DEVIOUS PLOT BY THE PPP/C, LED TO THE CURTAILMENT OF THE TABULATION PROCESS, FURTHER GIVING STRENGTH TO THE OPPOSITION PARTY’S GRAND DESIGN OF BRINGING THE GECOM INTO DISREPUTE. IT WAS A PLOT MOST FOUL.

Add the unceremonious and uninvited entry of the Canadian envoy into a scheduled meeting of the GECOM Commissioners, where that high representative sought to dictate to the gathering what should be done, and one will understand that this had been a collective that had a completely different mission at hand, instead of just being observatory in DEED AND IN FACT.

• Rule Three, which states: ‘’Observers will base all conclusions on their personal observations or clear and convincing facts or evidence. ‘’
Emerging evidence has revealed that the perfidious lobby firm Mercury Public Affairs, that well-known bastion of fake news, misinformation and disinformation, had been actively engaged by the equally treacherous PPP/C opposition, in an exercise of distortion against the government, being fed to those very international observer missions’ headquarters, and other influential sections of the government of the United States, and even that of Great Britain. Thus, their arrival in Guyana had already been biased, particularly shockingly against a constitutional body which independent functions and right to be autonomous have been punctiliously respected and observed by the coalition government, the main object of their dark plot. Therefore, the ability of these especially international missions, to be impartial and objective with regard to their laid-down observatory role, had already become compromised. In other words, they came to be partisan participants in a process which action had been clearly out of their remit in terms of the OSCE/ODIHR rules.

• Rule Four, which speaks of: “Observers will not make any comments to the media on the electoral process or on the substance of their observations.”
This particular rule suffered daily abuse. It became a shameless spectacle of a category on an important mission of neutrality, becoming the additional, open media mouthpiece of an opposition party, well-known for its chronicled record of formerly leading a criminal state, with a current presidential candidate on 19 criminal charges for fraud and dubious academic certificates. In this scenario of outright deceit, and vile conspiracies, these co-conspirators became an unambiguous part of the local clique which continued to pedddle dangerous distortions through an equally perverse media.
• Rule Five, which speaks of: “Observers will not take any unnecessary or undue risks.

Each observer’s personal safety overrides all other considerations.
It was no longer about their “personal safety’’; for had it been such an important imperative, none of them, particularly those from the other jurisdictions, would have been readily a part of such an invasive mob, inclusive of armed mobsters. In such environment, tragedy could have occurred, since their safety could have been compromised. Any such occurrence would have been unfair for the host government to be responsible for, much less answer.

• Rule Six, which clearly spells out: “Observers will comply with all national laws and regulations.”
Their conduct, was never meant to ‘’respect the national laws and regulations’’ of Guyana, not when they came with a prejudiced agenda, determined by being fed a diet of filthy lies which were clearly meant to discredit and undermine the incumbent executive, the GECOM, and even disregarding the nation’s judicial decisions.
Rule Seven, which unambiguously stated what these international observers cum interlopers and intruders should have done, and which departure from such principles, and open campaign on behalf of an opposition political party, bent on subverting the constitutional process, while paying lip service to democracy, did not honour or adhere to: “Observers will exhibit the highest levels of personal discretion and professional behaviour at all times.”
This has been every bit a violation of the very rules which SHOULD ALWAYS GUIDE THE CONDUCT OF these so –called neutralists and non-partisan deceivers. For how could they have claimed the high ground of impartiality, when they were in fact willing servants of an undemocratic political party and its local clique of vested- interest agents, and a thorough accessory to its plot to undermine the democracy of the state? Their more than unprofessional conduct was as immoral as could have been.
These people have made a mockery of democracy; have throttled the dictums of non-partisanship and neutrality, as if cutting the neck of a hen, while kicking the whole idea of election observer missions in its face. One hopes that with the impending recount if they are accredited, they will respect and observe the OSCE/ODIHR handbook rules. It is my fervent hope that other jurisdictions elsewhere would have taken a note as to the travesty that such a group had committed in Guyana.
Regards
Earl Hamilton