The Constitution of Guyana is silent on whether or not the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) could revisit the declared results of an election if errors were found to be contained therein.

This is the advice GECOM has received from legal luminaries, including Attorney General Doodnauth Singh, following consultations.

GECOM had sought legal advice on whether constitutional provisions allowed for a revision of the declared results if errors were recognised, The Commission had also sought to find out whether the elections body could interfere with the seat allocation in Parliament once the results were gazetted.

Sources close to the Commission told Kaieteur News that the legal advice tendered suggest that since the law is silent on how to revisit the declared results, the court may have to decide if it is mandatory or directory.

While no political party has publicly challenged the 15-day time frame in which the results must be declared and parties subsequently advised, GECOM sought legal advice on the issue, and was advised that the results from the August 28 polls were declared in accordance with Section 110 of the Representation of the People's Act.

GECOM was further advised that while parties were notified of the results outside of the 15-day time line, the Act did not state when the parties should be notified.

The Commission had also sought legal advice on whether it could respond to the allegations, since election petitions have been filed in the High Court challenging the declared results.

Sources indicated that GECOM has been advised that it should maintain its silence on the claims forwarded by the People's National Congress Reform-One Guyana (PNCR-1G) Leader Robert Corbin and the Alliance For Change (AFC), which pointed to errors in the declared results.

Legal luminaries believe that since petitions have been filed in the High Court challenging the elections, a statement by GECOM might be viewed as contemptuous.

Sources had told this newspaper that although GECOM has been silent on the claims made by the AFC and the PNCR-1G, it has been conducting an internal investigation, which has not yet been concluded.

The AFC has moved to the court contending that the errors contained in the results emanating from Region 10 cost them a Parliamentary seat, which was awarded to the PPP/C; while Corbin pointed out that errors were also found in other Regions, which cost the Justice For All Party (JFAP) a Parliamentary seat, which was awarded to the AFC.

The People's Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) should battle in court for the Region 10 seat, once a court date is appointed.

On November 10, the AFC caused an elections petition to be filed in the High Court, challenging the elections results.

The party is seeking a court ruling that it won a sixth Parliamentary seat, which the ruling party now holds as a result of tabulation errors.

The court has not set a date for the commencement of hearings, but the PPP/C has stated its readiness to defend the Region Ten seat, which Prime Minister Samuel Hinds has been appointed to hold by the party.

The PPP/C has been silent on the AFC claims, stating that the matter was strictly in the hands of the Guyana Elections Commission.

But, last Friday, PPP/C General Secretary Donald Ramotar told the media that the party has been examining the AFC's claim, and has evidence that suggests otherwise.

On August 31, the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Gocool Boodoo, announced that PPP/C obtained 3,189 votes, and this was signed off by GECOM and all the political parties' counting agents.

However, these results were subject to further changes, and the new result showed that the AFC got 3,188 votes compared to the PPP/C's 3,273.

The AFC, through its petitioner, is asserting that in Region Ten, the party gained 3,321 votes as against 3,273 for the PPP/C, since the results from a number of polling places were omitted from the CEO's declared results.

Corbin also noted that the errors in tallying the results also denied the Justice For All Party (JFAP) a top-up seat, noting that the JFAP would have gained the seat from the AFC, which would have seen the latter retaining its five seats.