The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) says no finding by the Chief Election Officer determined that proposed scrutineers from the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) Party were undeserving of representation, moving to clarify claims that a consultation ruling had kept them out.
The Commission issued a statement Friday seeking to clarify the roles of GECOM and the Chief Election Officer amid public concerns over the appointment and remuneration of Opposition scrutineers.
GECOM said it is currently remunerating 69 scrutineers appointed by A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) under an existing arrangement to pay scrutineers on behalf of the combined opposition parties. The Commission stressed that this arrangement does not amount to a determination that WIN or any other opposition party is not entitled to representation.
The dispute arose after the Leader of the Opposition submitted a proposed list of scrutineers on June 3 following consultations with other opposition parties. APNU subsequently objected to the proposal and questioned whether meaningful consultation had taken place. GECOM said the competing positions did not result in a finding that the consultation was inadequate.
In correspondence dated June 5, the Chief Election Officer advised he was not empowered to determine whether meaningful consultation had occurred under Section 33D(2) of the Representation of the People Act. GECOM also emphasised that the Chief Election Officer cannot independently decide matters falling within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
“This is not a refusal to act. It is compliance with the law governing the office of the Chief Election Officer,” the Commission said.
According to GECOM, Section 7A of the Representation of the People Act places the Chief Election Officer under the direction and control of the Commission. Correspondence and supporting documents relating to the competing positions have been placed on the official record pending a conclusive determination, the Commission said.
GECOM further maintained that the Chief Election Officer handled the matter in a factual, professional and institutionally neutral manner, while stressing it has not determined that the consultation undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition was invalid, inadequate or deficient.
