GECOM – ChrisRam.net

March 15, 2019March 15, 2019

GECOM already has access to money for elections, the three-month period is not unusual

GECOM and the Ministry of Finance seem to be engaged in an effort to mislead the public of Guyana over the availability and use of funds approved in the 2019 Budget to conduct elections pursuant to the March 21 vote of No Confidence. Putting up one road block after another, it was not until the middle of February – around the halfway stage of the three-month deadline mandated for the holding of elections – did GECOM seem to need clarification on whether or not it could spend any part of the 2019 allocation of $5,371,061,000 on the elections.

An article in the Stabroek News of February 19, 2019 which quotes Finance Ministry officials, is headlined “GECOM needs parliamentary approval to use budget for new polls.” That this is not true goes charitably to the question of competence and the ability of the Ministry’s officials to read and understand, or more sinisterly, to its intention to become part of the conspiracy by elements of GECOM to frustrate the vote of the National Assembly.

November 15, 2017November 15, 2017

Mr Norton voted in favour of the bill on Article 161

Discretion, if not wisdom, suggests to any public official who mis-cites himself, misrepresents the facts on which he makes false claims, accuses others of amnesia and of stupidity, that at the very least, he should just stay silent, if not apologise. Expressed another way is the rule that when you are in a hole, you stop digging. Mr. Aubrey Norton seems unfamiliar with these common sense principles.

In his letter in the Stabroek News of yesterday’s date, Mr. Norton describes as “the summit of stupidity”, the question by attorney-at-law, Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, on how he, Norton voted on the constitutional amendment to article 161 in 2000. Mr. Norton goes on to lecture Mr. Ramkarran that “you don’t vote in such circumstances—the Speaker merely notes that the ayes have it.” Continue reading “Mr Norton voted in favour of the bill on Article 161”

November 13, 2017November 15, 2017

Mr Norton was wrong about the date of the GECOM proviso

The debate on the interpretation of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution has continued, with increased intensity, following the rejection of lists of eighteen persons named by the Leader of the Opposition and the unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson by President Granger. Unfortunately some writers have made claims that are at best incomplete, or are otherwise unsupported by facts.

Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye, WPA executive member in another section of the print media refers to Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine’s advocacy at the level of the WPA Executive of the “need to revisit the Carter formula” and that Roopnaraine had reminded the Executive “that the Carter Model was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it had outlived its usefulness.” Former General Secretary of the PNC and member of Parliament and now Government functionary, Mr. Aubrey Norton, seeking to justify the President’s unilateral decision, writes that “Jagdeo and PPP laid basis to move away from Carter Formula and it has come back to haunt them”, a claim challenged by Mr. Kamal Ramkarran in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. Perhaps a little bit of history of the Constitution and the Elections Commission will help. Continue reading “Mr Norton was wrong about the date of the GECOM proviso”

March 5, 2017March 5, 2017

It is a misconception that the Constitution gives precedence to judges for appointment to Gecom Chairman

I have followed with more than passing interest the debate on the interpretation of Article 161 of the Constitution which deals with the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom). Article 161 (1) requires the Chairman to be full-time and mandates that he shall not engage in any other employment. The real debate however has been in relation to Article 161 (2) which deals exclusively with the Chairman and his appointment.

For brevity, let me state that 161 (2) sets out the classes of persons eligible for appointment as Chairman as: current or former judges, persons qualified to be appointed as a judge (which is seven years after admission to the Bar) or other fit and proper person. The persons shall be named in a list submitted to the President by the Leader of the Opposition, not unacceptable to the President. Article 161 (2) has a proviso which states that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list, the President will appoint as Chairman a judge, former judge or one qualified to be a judge. Continue reading “It is a misconception that the Constitution gives precedence to judges for appointment to Gecom Chairman”