In 2012 I wrote an article which was published in the Mirror newspaper which represents the views of the PPP. I said that the PPP governments had done much to deal with corruption and I pointed out the steps that had been taken. I noted, however, that increasing government spending had created additional opportunities for more corruption to flourish which had become pervasive in Guyana. The events provoked by that article defined the PPP’s and Government’s attitude to the issue of corruption. The Government denied the existence of corruption then, before, and throughout the post-Jagan era and called on those who made the allegations to prove that corruption existed. Since corruption by its nature is conducted in secret, it was not possible to ‘prove it.’ Corruption has continued to grow since 2012 and did not skip a beat when APNU+AFC took office in 2015.

June 13 marks the 42^nd anniversary of the assassination of Walter Rodney, described by Martin Carter as killing “the origin of rain.” The struggle for official recognition of Walter Rodney’s contribution to the freedom of Guyana has been long and arduous. Revered even in his lifetime for the bold and courageous deployment of his dynamic leadership and intellect in the service of Guyana’s working people, he posed a challenge to authoritarianism by inspiring Guyanese of all races to demand their liberty.  

The Alliance for Change (AFC), the junior partner to A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) in the alliance, APNU+AFC, which formed the government of Guyana from 2015 to 2020 and which now forms the Opposition, has hinted at a press conference on Friday last, reported in SN yesterday, that it will not renew the Cummingsburg Accord (Accord), its secret agreement with APNU, which comes to an end in December.

Can GECOM investigate complaints of irregularities that allegedly occurred in elections after results have been declared? It cannot. Can GECOM investigate complaints of irregularities occurring in elections while the elections are going on and before results have been declared? It can, where possible. In the latter case, where one or more of its employees commit electoral mistakes or malpractices, or irregularities otherwise occur, GECOM has a duty to take steps that are authorized by law. It can investigate its employees and, if liable, can replace them. It can investigate a systems breakdown affecting one or more areas which cannot be rectified in time before the conclusion of the elections. If this happens, GECOM has the power to cancel the elections in that or those areas and hold them at a later date.

It was reported on June 15 that the Chair of GECOM, Justice Claudette Singh, opposed an investigation by GECOM into the elections proposed by Opposition nominated members. Justice Singh made a distinction between a review of GECOM’s processes in effectively conducting an election and an investigation into what transpired during a particular election. The Chair arued that GECOM may look into the effectiveness of the system to ensure that there are no weaknesses. However, GECOM cannot investigate the truth of particular claims, leading potentially to a determination as to the validity of the elections. This is not the function of GECOM but of a court of law under article 163 of the Constitution. This article empowers the Court to determine whether an “election has been lawfully conducted” or whether the result has been affected by “any unlawful act or omission.”