IT IS astounding the way so-called kingmakers can spin words to perpetuate unverified occurrences as fact.
The case in point here is documented in the Freddie Kissoon column, published in the Kaieteur News of Thursday, November 25, 2010 under the title: ‘More on the theme of the impossibility of the PPP’s re-election’.
Freddie has written as a statement of fact that “…the PPP’s votes do not come exclusively from the upper classes. Not even the six seats of the AFC (five plus the acknowledged sixth by GECOM, which can only be reversed by the courts or Parliament) came mainly from the middle stratum.”
An analysis of this statement reveals that Freddie is insinuating that GECOM has acknowledged that the AFC won six Parliamentary seats.  However, I have no recollection of GECOM ever having taken this position, especially since I had taken a keen interest in this matter which emerged in the immediate post-2006 election period.
My recollection is that it was touted that the votes on Region Ten were tabulated incorrectly in favour of the PPP/C getting the Regional Seat, whereas this Seat should have gone to the AFC.  However, this allegation has never been substantiated to date.
GECOM is on record that it would not comment on the matter since it is sub judice, having been put before the courts by the AFC. As far as I am aware, the matter is yet to be resolved by the courts. The AFC is headed by two prominent lawyers, who are aware of, and would certainly understand, this position.
GECOM never acknowledged that the AFC won a sixth seat. GECOM would have been out of its mind to so do, knowing fully well that the declared results of the elections remain current until such time that it is altered by way of a recount of the relevant ballots, or if it is so ordered by the court.
In view of the foregoing, why would Freddie conclude that the AFC won the seat in question, and that this was acknowledged by GECOM? Where is the evidence to validate this conclusion? No one with any level of reasonableness could arrive at this conclusion based on the prevailing circumstances. Is this absurdity of Kissoon’s not reflective of his unabashed pimping in favour of the AFC?
By the way, the open manner in which Freddie touts for the Alliance for Change (AFC) fuels the speculation that he is this Party’s official spin doctor.  The AFC, as a Party which promotes itself as a virtuous entity, would be well advised to seriously consider whether the fulminations that are perpetrated via the Freddie Kissoon column would be helpful/harmful to its objectives.
Even though some persons might deem this issue to be small and insignificant, readers in general are advised to note this matter as being representative of the manipulation of uncertainties/falsehoods by Freddie with the purpose of promoting them as facts in support of or against any person/group of his partiality or scorn as the case might be.