-says only High Court has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ to determine whether an election is lawfully conducted

THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on Thursday emphasised that only the High Court has jurisdiction to determine whether an election is lawfully conducted

The Commission, on Thursday, made this fact pellucid in the wake of disinformation peddled by Dr. David Hinds of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) during his Politics 101 talk show on November 25. During the programme, it was claimed that the GECOM Chairman ‘cover up of fraud.’
In a press release, the commission said it was again before forced to challenge disinformation coming from prominent political stakeholders and activists using various platforms.

“During the programme, while referencing allegations of voter impersonation that surfaced during the National Recount exercise in 2020, Dr. Hinds specifically accused the Chairman of GECOM, Justice Claudette Singh of ‘declaring an election with knowledge of the potential breach of the law’ and voting against
an internal review of the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

“In this regard, while GECOM has continually and categorically clarified that, in accordance with the Constitution, the Commission does not have the authority to validate any elections, there is a relentless effort by a few individuals with malicious intentions who continue to repeat such a false narrative,” the release said.

It added that consequently, as the agency responsible for the conduct of elections in Guyana, it is mandatory for GECOM to ensure that the public is always accurately guided insofar as statutory provisions are concerned. It is,
therefore, against this backdrop that the Commission takes the opportunity, once again, to dispel the disinformation being spewed in the public.

In this regard, it was pointed out that Article 163 (1) (b) (i) of the Constitution, which is the supreme law, provides that “the High Court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question either generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been, or may have been, affected by any unlawful act or omission.”

“It is of crucial importance to note that, notwithstanding GECOM had received copies of documents associated with the alleged voter impersonation, the Commission could not have investigated this issue since, according to Article 163 (1) (b) of the Constitution, the only method by which such a matter could have been ventilated is specifically stipulated as by way of an election petition,” the electoral body emphasised.

It said that in view of the foregoing Article of the Constitution, “there is absolutely no way that GECOM should be accused of ‘cover up of fraud’ as is the case in point.”

It added, “Accordingly, the GECOM encourages all stakeholders to ensure that they conduct thorough legal research before publishing false information in the public, since this type of misinformation and disinformation carry potential to cause mistrust and lack of confidence in the Commission and harm to its Officials.”