Dear Editor,
PLEASE permit me to respond to some rather callous, shallow, and hasty generalisations recently reported in the public media, at the hands of the Electoral Reform Group (ERG) whose representatives say that ‘splitting up Region 4 is unjustified, provocative.’ Nothing is further from the truth! The architect of this wicked piece must have missed the framework of abundant justifications or rather, selectively uses an opportunity to self-aggrandise his/her own hidden agenda.

The ERG’s assertion that the splitting of Region #4 is unjustified, provocative, is pure rubbish! Allow me to enlighten our readers and the ERG that there is a long-established precedent normally utilised by GECOM in the conduct of General and Regional Elections. The secretariat under the control of the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) and responsibility of the commission, has consistently employed four (4) coordinators with designated functions related to the coordination of activities within the East Bank, East Coast, North Georgetown, and South Georgetown to facilitate the smooth running of elections.

Of note, the role of these officials is not specifically mentioned in the RoPA, and their consistent use over the years is premised on the general, tacit acceptance that a fair and unbiased CEO will use notified transparent measures to simplify and execute electoral processes. These coordinators are normally liaison officers to the Deputy Register Officers and the RO of Region #4. The GECOM Secretariat and the commissioners saw the intervention as fit, proper, and necessary for the smooth and effective running of the electoral process in Region #4.

Further, it is public knowledge that GECOM usually utilised these Coordinator/ Liaison Officers to work alongside and facilitate clarifications from counting agents and the other appropriate officials of political parties, in simplifying the process. One must, therefore, address the related reasons before spewing out criticisms without basis.

Importantly, Region #4 has the highest concentration of approximately 300,000 residents and by extension, almost 50 per cent of the voters are on the Official List of Electors (OLE). Consideration of the continued expanding population in this region alone lends to the contemplation of the necessary adjustments of effective transparency and monitoring control. Given the public evidence supporting charges of electoral officials in control of elections machinery for electoral fraud, the need to make strengthening amendments to the RoPA is necessary, as the roles of these officials while essential, cannot be left to chance and discretion of corrupted officials.

It is very important to include the amendments outside of a comprehensive electoral process that can take years, given the displayed level of unreasonableness by officials representing the PNC and some of their Coalition partners. It is factual that the previously appointed committee with responsibility for electoral reform made no significant progress for almost two decades.

Further, it is essential to note that with the proposed amendments, the Region #4 Returning Officer (RO) will still retain regional responsibility, but now have structured and legally supported officials with clearly binding responsibilities. Critically, these amendments will remove the convenience of abuse of process as is evidenced by the situation when Melanie Marshall and others refused to use a designed tally sheet for reporting East Bank votes under one RO and had no objections to another. Her reason in the former case was that the sheet was not supported by law!

The ERG and other interested civil groups which have not contested elections or faced the level of deliberate frustrations that are at times rolled out by biased elections personnel on the GECOM structure, cannot appreciate this need for legal regularisation. They must, however, be fully cognisant of the fact that the strengthening of the RoPA will legitimise many of the subjectivities in the electoral approaches and process in Region#4.

Consequently, it must also be recognised that the People’s Progressive Party and the other consulted civic groups also provided suggestions in support of changes to improve the effective running of Region # 4 by reducing the current approach that is highly susceptible to abuse.

Related also is the indiscretionate gerrymandering of electoral boundaries secretly that took place during the 2018 Local Government Elections. When made public, it had party officials scrambling at the last moment to achieve the signatory support for contesting candidates that were affected by the sinister switches. These were not publicised in the Official Gazette and were never formally discussed at GECOM’s Commission meetings.

There are no minutes to show any discussion or approval at the commission level, in respect to changing the constituency boundaries across the country. As for the cost to which the ERG refers, readers and the general public must demand the reasons why the last seven years of GECOM expenditures were not audited. GECOM financial records must be audited and the findings made public, so that the ERG can be appraised of the findings.

It must be also noted that while Region #4 as a consequence of the amendments will have the four identified areas to legally improve monitoring control for electoral purposes, the regional seat allocation will remain the same. The total votes for the General Elections will still be used en bloc for calculation of the 40 top-up seats and the form of the usual calculation of seats will not vary.

It is critical that the GECOM Secretariat and the staff, in particular, be appropriately tooled to enable the organisation to produce free and fair elections. The staffing selections and employment approach at GECOM must be imbued by purposeful criteria to select men and women with integrity. It is unacceptable for GECOM to shortlist persons, who were dismissed for various unacceptable behaviour, to be interviewed for employment again.

Editor, as the nation anticipates the prudent introspection in realising the necessary transparent changes at GECOM, the provocative approach of the ECG and other unresearched partners must be seen in the context of their parsimonious framework and intent.
Your sincerely,
Neil Kumar