Vincent Alexander
June 16 ,2021
-two commissioners attended funeral
A crucial statutory meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) scheduled for yesterday was cancelled after two opposition-nominated members requested permission to attend the funeral of long-time PNCR member Winston Bentham.
Bentham, the first chairman of the party’s youth arm, died on June 1 at 88 years. According to Commissioner Vincent Alexander he informed GECOM Chair, ret’d Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh that he had been asked to deliver a tribute at the funeral which was scheduled at the same time and the meeting and therefore asked to be excused from the meeting. Commissioner Charles Corbin also chose to attend the funeral depriving the Commission of the quorum necessary to proceed.
It had been expected that GECOM would debate the three motions which have been brought for the removal of the Chief Election Officer, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) and Region Four Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo.
The motions which were tabled on June 1 accuse the officers of acting in a manner which has caused a loss of public confidence and public trust in the electoral process.
They were each informed of the motions via letter from the GECOM Chair and given until yesterday to respond to the allegations.
While Alexander and government-nominated commissioner Sase Gunraj said they were not aware of any response from the officers, DCEO Roxanne Myers told Stabroek News that she had responded.
Myers declined to provide any other comment stressing that she intended to “respect the Chair’s process.”
While the motions against the CEO and Mingo list numerous instances where they are alleged to have acted contrary to GECOM protocol and law the motion against Myers does not state how she “aided and abetted” the CEO but does present two instances where she acted in a manner which the Commissioners allege lacked impartiality.
According to the motion the DCEO facilitated a meeting between a candidate, then Foreign Minister Karen Cummings and foreign observers at a GECOM Command Centre and on another occasion instructed members of the Guyana Police Force to remove GECOM Commissioner Gunraj and various party representatives from that same command centre.
Speaking about this distinction Alexander said that the motion has even failed to state how Myers aided and abetted her fellow officers. He added that he remains unclear how the two specific instances referenced condemn the DCEO.
The Commissioner further noted that in the case of the CEO and RO a number of issues arise including that these matters are before the Court.
He questioned whether GECOM’s action in debating and voting on the motions will be viewed as seeking to influence the thinking of the court especially since the allegations in the motions are a replication of the charges before the courts.
“The Lowenfield matter should be subject to legal interrogation…There are a lot of legal intricacies in the charges brought against Lowenfield which have to be interrogated. Those can best be done by a Court of law rather than in a situation where people don’t want an interrogation but prefer a vote on the matter. Any wise organisation would wait for the Court to pronounce on the matter as many organisations have done before. [The motions] can be seen as looking to pre-empt the court and thereby act in a manner prejudicial to a matter that is sub judice”, he concluded.
Gunraj disagreed. He argued that criminal proceedings are separate and apart from disciplinary proceedings regarding an employee.
“The law specifically states that they are subject to the direction and control of the Commission. As a consequence, we are not constrained from engaging in any process that we see fit,” he pronounced.
This has also been the position of Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC. In a recent letter to this newspaper he stated “The truth is that there is sufficient evidence within the personal knowledge of the Commission, including acts of attempted fraud, dishonesty, insubordination and wilful refusal to comply with clear statutory provisions, that ought to render these persons dismissed, instantaneously with cause, over nine months ago! In this regard, the Commission itself is guilty of dereliction of its constitutional duty to the people of Guyana for not acting decisively and condignly on this matter. But that is a debate for another time and place.
“This reckless critic of the GECOM Chairperson’s actions blatantly refuses to recognise that both the Constitution and the Elections Law Amendment Act expressly mandate that its employees are to be hired by the Commission and must remain, at all times, subject to the direction and control of the said Commission. During the ‘’5 months of madness’’ when the Chief Election Officer went rogue, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Caribbean Court of Justice pronounced that he is not a ‘’lone ranger,’’ but subject to the direction and control of the Commission, citing the very constitutional and statutory provisions to which I have made reference. The Courts further emphasised that the Commission reserves the power to discipline and dismiss officers as it sees fit. There is no obligation known to law which enjoins the Commission to await the determination of any criminal proceedings before it activates its lawful powers of dismissal”.
