Dear Editor,
BOTH the leaders of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Mr. Nigel Hughes, and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Aubrey Norton of the People’s National Congress (PNC), continue to maintain their rhetoric of insisting that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) are incapable of conducting a free and fair election, scheduled to take place this year, clearly with the intention of discrediting the administration of the elections by GECOM.

They do so in anticipation of crying “foul”, should they lose the elections, which is more than likely, or, even worse, as an excuse for not contesting the elections and making public trouble.
It is also clear that nothing GECOM says or does will make any difference to messrs Hughes and Norton.

Both Hughes and Norton, but, with Hughes, the more belligerent of the two, are also insisting that GECOM scrap the voters list, that is, the National Register of Registrants (NRR), and hold house to house registration to produce a new list and, as well, introduce the application of biometrics for both the purpose of registration and casting the vote at the place of poll.

The contention of the opposition that the list is “bloated”, presumable meaning that it has more names on it than it should, would be valid only with the presentation of evidence that persons deemed to be dead or not properly on the list had previously voted, or that individual persons had voted more than once, none of which has there been any proof.

We know that the voters list includes a significant number of persons who are registered to vote, who lived overseas, have died but remain on the list, explaining the size of the list. So far, there is no practical means of moving these persons from the list.

In the meantime, the Chair of GECOM, Justice Claudette Singh (Ret’d), quite recently made it clear that with regard to the arguments in favour of the introduction of biometrics at the place of poll, “with less than a year to go before these elections, and given the number of tasks that would need to be done before such a system can be properly introduced, and all of the work already required to prepare for General and Regional Elections, I am convinced that this is not feasible within the time presently available”. She is, of course, right.

Unfortunately, even the mass identification, never mind distribution of the $100,000 to those entitled by the government, has encountered persistent and unanticipated challenges.
The Private Sector Commission (PSC) has issued a statement in support of the GECOM Chair, pointing out that “there is no constitutional or legal requirement for the introduction of biometric fingerprinting at the place of poll” and reminding that it “is presently only legally required at the time of registration”.

The Private Sector Statement goes on to emphasise that, during registration, biometric fingerprinting “is conducted with representatives from each political party present to verify voter identity. On completion of the process, the scanned manual fingerprints are transformed into digital images and stored in a secured database which is then checked internationally for cross-matching to ensure against duplication”.

The Private Sector has stressed this point to underline the fact that there is no need whatsoever for the application of biometric at the place of poll even if the Constitution were to be amended to provide for it.

The fact is, that, in spite of all the attempts by the opposition parties to rig the results of the last election resulting, eventually, in a total recount of the votes, voting on election day at each polling place with the Statements of Poll (SOPs) signed off by the contesting parties and posted immediately at each polling place, attempts at rigging have not taken place at the polling places on election day.

So, what must we conclude from the determination of Hughes and Norton to question the integrity and capability of GECOM to conduct a free and fair election, if not to excuse themselves and their parties for planning to undermine and disrupt the entire electoral process, rather than their risking contesting and losing a free and fair election?

Yours sincerely,
Kit Nascimento