Dear Editor,
I refer to the litigation filed by Dr. Vivian Williams Esq. on behalf of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), the gravamen of which, as I understand it, was that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) disenfranchised electors from being eligible to vote for that party in three regional elections, with resulting negative consequences for other tabulations of votes cast.
The contention was that GECOM excluded that party as a contestant in those three regional elections by omitting it from the bottom half of the ballot paper to be used in Monday’s national and regional elections. I beg forgiveness in advance if I have misunderstood: indeed, I struggled to follow the whiteboard explanation offered by the party’s presidential candidate, Madam Amanza Walton-Desir. I believe her prime ministerial candidate, from his constant interruptions during her presentation, was equally unclear.
In my opinion, this case was a colossal fishing expedition for gailbaka or some rare or exotic species. The question needs to be asked: how can FGM pray to be included to contest the three regional elections at this eleventh hour, when it had excluded itself from those same contests in the first instance by failing to submit lists of candidates for elections in those regions? To the best of my understanding, no supporter of FGM would be disenfranchised, as they can still vote in the presidential/geographic elections in the top half of the ballot. If at all, it is their party that “disenfranchised” its supporters by submitting all but three lists of candidates at the regional level.
The decision was handed down on Friday and Monday has been officially declared a holiday. Even with our current e-filing court system, an appeal could not be heard before Monday’s election. The fact that the CCJ sat some years ago on a Sunday in a matter on appeal from Barbados, to protect the right of a Commonwealth citizen to vote, ought not to be replicated here in an uncharted and uncertain matter like this. Why did esteemed counsel, who resides outside the jurisdiction, wait until a week before elections to file this application, when the situation was evident since mid-July, at the time of submission to and acceptance of nominations by GECOM?
If this perchance was an otherwise well-intentioned attempt on behalf of its supporters to delay the election, then it is surprising, coming from a party that held a public signing of a “contract” with the people, without consulting the people, nor explaining which of the three signatories – including Ms. Walton-Desir, herself a lawyer – was representative of the people. From whence cometh this late burst of robust representation on behalf of the same persons for whom a “contract” was concluded without their knowledge or consent? Respectfully, I submit that the litigation was misguided and ill-timed; in such circumstances, the awards of costs to the respondents are in order.
In another aspect, I am disappointed that views have already been expressed on social media by some persons that could lead to the conclusion that once the Court’s decision is not to their liking, it is motivated against them politically in favour of the “other side.” The implication appears to be that court decisions are only correct if these persons agree with them. That, unfortunately, is not how the judicial process is meant to work.
Indeed, it is reminiscent of the offering of a former sitting Minister some years ago – who has now tied her political fortunes to another party – that Guyana does not have to abide by the ruling of the CCJ, as it is a Trinidad [sic] court! In this regard, I saw a comment on Facebook after Friday’s court decision to the effect that an appeal to the CCJ would be a waste of time, as the PPP/C controls that Court as well. To this I asked: who controls the CCJ when an appeal comes up from Barbados? Or Belize?
I trust that all parties, their candidates, and electors will approach Monday’s ballot with a fair and open mind – the transgressions, invective, and distasteful statements notwithstanding – so that the electorate can exercise their democratic right to vote for the party of their choice in a calm and peaceful manner, without coercion or threats. Would it be too much for us to expect a result in our elections – without any “trouble” – before those in Jamaica, which will be held two days later and which has a population about three times the size of ours?
Yours faithfully,
Neville Bissember
