Dec 19 declaration of presidency was a betrayal
|
Dec 19 declaration of presidency was a betrayal
- CEO tells elections petition hearing
Stabroek News
March 16, 2000
The declaration of the presidency by Doodnauth Singh on December 19, 1997 was a unilateral decision and a betrayal of the commissioners, the elections petition heard yesterday.
Stanley Singh, the chief election officer (CEO), under cross-examination by Senior Counsel Rex McKay representing respondent Desmond Hoyte, told a packed courtroom that at 9 am on December 19, Chairman of the Elections Commission, Doodnauth Singh, had asked him for an update on the elections results and that within an hour he had presented the document. Doodnauth Singh shortly after, summoned the CEO and informed him in the presence of Ganga Persaud, senior manager of operations that he was going to declare Janet Jagan as president.
McKay then asked the CEO if he had queried the decision.
"More than that!" replied the witness. "I recommended to the chairman that this should not be a unilateral decision; the commissioners should be brought together and the matter discussed before any such step be made."
"Did the chairman agree?" McKay asked.
"Yes, he agreed to my suggestion and I was instructed to summon the commissioners to the chairman's office. I proceeded to do this by intercom and telephone. But before this assembly could take place, I was informed that the presidency had been declared."
The CEO recalled that the first he heard of the declaration was when "my staff was running helter skelter out of the compound shouting 'Guyana going to burn down! Doodnauth Singh declare Jagan president!'"
Asked if he believed the commissioners would have felt stabbed in the back by the decision, the CEO said: "Very much so," as they were still involved in the verification process. "And as an employee of the Elections Commission I feel stabbed all over!" he added.
"Would you say then that your advice had been heeded?" McKay asked. "Yes, heeded in the breach...," the CEO said dryly.
At the time of this testimony, the witness's counsel, who happens to be Doodnauth Singh, was not in the court.
McKay asked the CEO whether, when he had given the chairman his update on the morning of December 19, he was aware of the verification process being conducted by the commissioners. He replied that he had been aware and testified that he had not informed any of them of the update. "Is it your belief that the chairman was the commission?" asked McKay.
"It is my understanding that the chairman represents the commission," he replied.
"Now I see why so many things went wrong," observed McKay who requested that the CEO make an effort to find the law that states this.
The witness also conceded that there was a difference in the distribution of voter identification cards between PPP and PNC strongholds when given figures from the CARICOM Audit Report that showed 6.9% of voters in Region Four did not receive cards whereas in Regions Five and Six, PPP areas, the figures were 4.1% and 5.2%. He also could not refute McKay's assertions that distribution of ID cards in Regions Five and Six started in early September--earlier than in Region Four, which McKay said had started in late October. The CEO said he could recall rumours of cards being sold or found floating in the Demerara River. But he said he had not heard of anyone voting without a card until a few months ago after reading testimony given in this hearing.
McKay then furnished a letter from Doodnauth Singh addressed to Hoyte, dated December 23, referring to the first declaration of results made by the CEO on December 21, in which the chairman wrote: "The commission wishes to reassure the PNC that documents may have been given in error to representatives of your party... These documents were not considered by the commission and are not in their present form of any validity." The letter also stated that the verification process had started on the same day of the letter, but the witness recalled that the process had started earlier and according to an Electoral Assistance Bureau report was 50% complete by December 19.
The CEO explained that the verification process "was an examination of statements of poll (SOP) in hands of commissioners as against results in hands of political parties and that there was an agreement between the commission and the parties that some agreement be arrived at to reach a correct result." McKay asked why two days after the CEO's original certificate of December 21, the chairman had ordered Singh to declare another result which he produced on January 29. "He said that there were some inaccuracies in the calculations," the witness testified.
McKay suggested that the reason the CEO had not informed the commissioners of his first declaration was that it would have been highly unusual and a "daring thing to do" given that they were still engaged in their own verification process.
Cross-examination will continue today. The petition was brought by Esther Perreira on the grounds that the elections process was so flawed as to be unable to accurately reflect the will of the people.
