|
Press Releases and New Reports on Guyana:
January 13, 1999
PRESS STATEMENT BY HUGH
DESMOND HOYTE, LEADER OF THE PEOPLE'S NATIONAL CONGRESS AT PRESS CONFERENCE HELD ON
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 AT 11.00 A.M. IN THE HALL OF HEROES, CONGRESS PLACE, SOPHIA,
GEORGETOWN
The People's National Congress took up it seats in
the Parliament on 15th July, 1998 consequent on the signing of the Saint Lucia Statement.
It did so on the distinct understanding that the PPP would improve the management of the
Seventh Parliament to ensure its proper functioning. This undertaking given by Mrs Janet
Jagan, the PPP representative in Saint Lucia, was in response to the PNC's criticism and
objections. The specific grounds of PNC complaints were as follows:
- that the PPP regime was dilatory in
answering Opposition questions submitted to Ministers. Indeed, most of these questions
were never answered and, whenever an
answer was essayed, it was usually untruthful or evasive;
- that Opposition Motions had not been
brought up for debate;
- that the regime bulldozed important,
substantial and complex legislation through the Parliament without affording the Opposition sufficient time to study it and obtain appropriate advice from experts and affected persons and interests.
- that the regime had never held
sittings of the House on Wednesdays when, in accordance with the tradition of the House,
Opposition business was allowed to take precedence over government business and could be
adequately ventilated. The regime never permitted this to be done - even on a single occasion.
The Parliament was thus reduced to an ineffectual
talk-shop and rubber-stamp for government legislation, it degenerated into a set of
ritualistic performances.
The cynical, if not contemptuous, attitude of the
regime towards the Opposition in the Parliament could be illustrated, for example, by the
way it dealt with the following legislation in the Sixth Parliament: the Electricity
Sector Reform Bill, 1997; the Public Utilities Commission Bill, 1997; and the Guyana
Energy Agency Bill, 1997. These were massive, highly technical and complex pieces of
legislation. They were circulated to members a mere week before hey were placed on the
Order Paper to be debated and passed by the National Assembly at the 104th sitting on
October 28, 1997.
The regime gave the Opposition no time to study them
or consult with knowledgeable persons and with various interests that would be affected by
them. Consequently the Opposition could not make any sensible or constructive contribution
to the debate. What is worse is that shortly before the sitting the regime circulated over
100 amendments to the Bill. (The WPA also submitted 75 amendments).
These tactics made a mockery of the Parliamentary
process and the PNC. The Opposition parties rightly refused to be part of this travesty
and participate in the debate. The PPP rushed those Bills through. (It might be of
interest to note that the regime has recently indicated that it proposes to bring before
the House new legislation to amend substantially the same Electricity Sector Reform Bill,
1997).
The PNC had a reasonable expectation that the PPP
would honour the undertaking that the management of Parliament would be improved.
Unfortunately, this has not happened. The conduct of the business of the House has, if
anything, got worse. The regime is still not answering Opposition questions promptly,
truthfully, or at all; nor has it been bringing up Opposition motions for debate. Since it
entered Parliament, the PNC has submitted a substantial number of questions to be
answered. Of these, only 12 have, so far, been answered. Of the Motions submitted by the
PNC, not a single one has been brought up to be debated.
What is quite distateful is that the PPP Ministers
have persisted in its unsavoury practice of lying to the House. Let me give some examples,
Prime Minister Hinds was asked when would the government establish the Linden Development
Authority promised by the late President Cheddi Jagan on 14th January, 1995. In his reply
he said, that he could not recall "the occasion nor the circumstances referred
to". Unless Mr Hinds is brain-damaged, this was an egregious lie. Dr Jagan had made
that promise on a nationwide radio and television broadcast. It was widely reported in the
press. This was in response to massive demonstrations and protests at Linden the day
before when citizens, labouring under many grievances, shut down the Town. The question
gave the precise date of Dr Jagan's broadcast and promise, but Mr Samuel Hinds had the
gall to tell the House that he was not aware. All that he had to do was to check the
newspapers of the relevant date. Perhaps he believed that by answering as he did, he was
being clever.
Another example is provided by a question asked of
the Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General: "How many vacancies are there in
the Attorney-General Chambers?" To this simple question, his reply was: "That
the Solicitor General and the State Solicitor died during their tenure and their posts
have not yet been filled. The other positions were vacated by the holders thereof."
The question was "how many vacancies?" The Minister could not bring himself to
say that there were 12 vacancies, thereby letting the public know how parlous was the
state of the Chambers over which he presided.
A third example, Minister Xavier was asked when the
government intended to lay in the National Assembly the Report of the Presidential
Commission on the Mon Repos Sea Defence scandal of 1996. Mr Xavier said that the Report
had in fact been published at a press conference held by Dr Roger Luncheon, Head of the
Presidential Secretariat, at which he, the Minister, was present. He coyly neglected to
give the date of this press conference. In a letter to him, dated November 17, 1998, the
Leader of the People's National Congress asked him to provide the date of this alleged
press conference and also to state the manner in which the publication of the Report was
made, e.g. had copies been circulated to members of the media present? To date the
Minister has not replied. He cannot reply because he told a stupid lie. Everybody knows
that the Report was not published and the PPP has no intention of publishing the Report
since it contained damning conclusions about PPP corruption, incompetence, negligence and
Ministerial misconduct.
In the Seventh Parliament, the PPP has continued its
cavalier behaviour towards the Opposition. It is still bulldozing substantial legislation
through the House without giving the Opposition sufficient time to study it. For example,
the Guyana Shipping Bill, 1997, a highly technical piece of legislation consisting of 458
clauses and 2 schedules, was circulated to members only about a week before it was due for
the second and third reading. The Leader of the United Force was compelled to register a
strong protest, a protest with which the PNC concurred. The following Bills: the Insurance
Bill 1998, consisting of 156 clauses and 5 schedules; the Securities Industry Bill 1998
(146 clauses); the Bank of Guyana Bill, 1998 (64 clauses) - all of them very important and
highly technical legislation that had serious ramifications which are of vital importance
for our economy were all put on the Order Paper for debate and passage on a single day,
December 28, 1998. These Bills had been circulated less than two weeks before they were
passed. Legislation of such complexity needs to be carefully studied and should be subject
of scrutiny by Parliament Select Committee. This was not done.
The People's National Congress has observed these
unhappy developments with deep concern. The PPP has shown scant regard for the spirit of
the Saint Lucia Statement and undertakings given there by Mrs Janet Jagan on its behalf.
In the circumstances, the PNC is once again forced to question the good faith of the
People's Progressive Party in the implementation of the Headmanston Accord, the Saint
Lucia Statement and other agreements reached.
In the meantime, the Parliamentary process is
becoming increasingly meaningless and the People's National Congress has to question the
usefulness of its participation in it. Perhaps, the Party could more fruitfully spend its
time mobilising the masses and promoting greater awareness among them of the danger to the
integrity of the State in the current situation where the national business is not being
transacted in an open, honest and rational way; where the Legislature is ineffectual, and
democratic government is a sham.
Friday, July 09, 1998
THE BERBICE VIEW
The Guyana Government is currently pursing
policies which are detrimental to the rights of individuals in Guyana. The Optional
Protical to the U.N. Convenant on Political and Social Rights is being
"reviewed." This review is being made during a time of lawlessness in the
country. Three journalist Denis Chabrol, Urrel Wilkinson, and Michelle Elphage were abused
and attacked in the South American country.
In order to protect the rights of individuals in
Guyana, I appeal to the Government not to reverse its decision to adhere to the Optional
Protical. During his campaign for Guyana's Presidency in 1992, Dr. Jagan promised to sign
the Protocol. He delivered on his promise. This Protocol may be viewed as a special gift
to the Guyanese people and should be adhered to by all in Guyana.
Winston Felix, Consultant,
Berbice Consulting Group.
The WPA has consistently fought
for ethnic security for all
Dear Sir,
Mr Dev and Dr Baytoram are very informative when they write on matters
within their knowledge. They are not well informed on Rodney's
contribution to politics in Guyana during the days after his return.
They quote from Groundings With My Brothers and from a source they
date June 4, 1970. They imply that these two quotations are the sum total
of Rodney's opinions and teachings on race. I know Groundings which was
a reader at Republic Cooperative High School. I have never seen the June
4, 1970 source, but I know what Rodney thought and taught about race and
class from 1974 onwards at home and elsewhere.
On the Groundings quotation that Africans and Indians are both included in
the concept of Black Power and that Jamaica was a black nation they are
silent. They let Professor M.G. Smith speak for them about "the problems,
ambiguities and reservations intrinsic to that position." That is, Rodney's
position. They approve as more perceptive Rodney's 1970 position as
quoted by them. It seemed to speak of the need of the various ethnic
groups in an already divided Guyana to "put themselves together, pull
themselves together and when they have and when they can operate on the
basis of mutual respect, which they are not doing now, then the way will be
clear for the building of a new society, a society of a mixed unit through
socialism." Rodney is entitled to develop and the Jaguar Committee for
Democracy is entitled to its views on the society of their homeland. All I
ask is a little care when they are tempted to jump to conclusions about
others.
They do not know, perhaps, that just one year after 1970, ASCRIA was on
its own coming to the understanding that there could be no revolution of one
race. It concluded after an internal debate that Indians and Africans were
not enemies, but rivals and that the historical enemy was colonising
Europeans. ASCRIA saw this revolution as the transforming of colonial
relations.
As Dev and Baytoram seek out Rodney's programme in the political
process, it may be of some interest to the writers to know that the first
group of the WPA after its birth in 1974 was the Buxton-Annandale group.
Our favourite meetings for annual Rodney Freedom Festivals after his
assassination were those places where an Indian and African village stood
side by side. Villages of mainly one race were not neglected. (Here am I
again neglecting the general for its proof, the particular). We felt that our
gospel was more effective where we could speak to races of people
standing side by side. Our message was that those who were in the majority
should feel responsible for the protection of those who were in a minority.
For Dev and Baytoram to say that what Rodney did in WPA, or since his
return to Guyana, was a daily building of consciousness in the African
community while depending on inter linkage with the leadership of other
ethnic groups is false. [At that time all the persons who accepted Rodney's
range and quality of vision were in or near the WPA. There were no other
such leaders elsewhere identifying themselves. The supposed special
attention to Africans and the imagined linkages with Indian leaders outside
the WPA are both invented.] WPA was multi racial in support, in
membership and leadership, whether some like it or not. Rodney spent his
time in Guyana teaching and re-educating the working people and other
Guyanese in a way that was never done before as in his interpretation of
the formation of the Guyanese working people, which can be found in his
book "History of the Guyanese Working People 1881 to 1905". The
consciousness he strove to develop among all groups and audiences was
one of including "the other" in the destinies of Guyana. The Indians in the
WPA also had the same message, that we were not each other's enemies.
This was a powerful challenge to the existing way of thinking. We were the
only party with the same political line in Indian and African villages. People
can laugh at us now, but I am certain we kept the place from boiling over.
The PPP always directly and indirectly attempted to get the WPA to confine
its activity to African areas. For a long time, until December, 1980, WPA
visited PPP areas by invitation from the people only, but the invitations
were many. Rodney's systematic working in the Linden area, along with
Thomas, and less frequently others, had nothing to do with Africanness, but
with working people helping to determine in the political process. The
Linden workers had founded the Organisation of Working People with a
non racial outlook. Ali Majeed, a present WPA leader, came out of that
development.
The writers of the joint letter (SN June 19) especially Mr Dev, have spent
a lot of time and thought on the WPA, fully knowing that, because of the
racial division, WPA is a minor electoral force and also not a mass force.
They have gone so far as to say that we are chiefly responsible for the post
December 17 1997 political situation in Guyana. This fits in with what two
PPP leaders said to our senior M.P. in the lobby, that WPA was
responsible, since it "gave credibility" to the PNC's claims of rigging. Dev
said earlier that our speeches during the elections campaign heightened the
racial tension, or words to that effect. In this he clearly rejects the findings
of the Elections Assistance Bureau, without taking care as the EAB did to
present any evidence or surveys.
Guyanese people know more about the WPA than they do about the Jaguar
Committee for Democracy (JCD). The JCD was founded by Mr Dev and
others and became known to us in or around the early eighties. The writers
should think of spelling out for readers the aims of the JCD and what it has
attempted and achieved. They must also be fair and tell Guyanese how a
certain PPP leader warned them against working among Indians in Guyana.
They must say whether they stuck to their guns or took the warning
seriously. Then let them compare the warnings they got in private with
those Mr Burnham gave the WPA in public. Why do they continually write
about the WPA and not about the JCD of which they have full knowledge?
Are they in search of a scape goat? What are they trying to prove? Why is
it that they can never admit that any African activist ever served the
Indians in Guyana? Why has Mr Dev for one always argued that Indians in
the WPA are not Indian enough while Africans were, until the letter of June
19, African enough? Do they know how Indian was Jawaharlal Nehru when
he returned to India from Cambridge and described himself as more an
Englishman than an Indian and according to a biographer repeated thirty
years later that that Cambridge was a part of him?
Dev and Baytoram's description of WPA's African members as "adopting
Pan Africanism" as a slogan, "clenching fists", but not being real is
really
mean and unwelcome. What are their grounds for such a judgment? Are
they saying that people who endured without weeping every form of denial
because of their political attitudes and activities are mere fist clenchers?
Guyanese must ask what is the true purpose of these gifted men who target
the very political group which most helped to tilt the balance against the old
dictatorship. Because of this the WPA did not get the electoral support of
insecure African Guyanese. Dev and Baytoram are not satisfied that we
have also not got the support of insecure Indian Guyanese. Their whole
argument is to ensure that we are suspected all round by the ethnic masses.
What a noble mission! But since both masses see us as being on the other
side, why do they spend so much time on it? Indians and Africans in the
main have regarded each other as forces to be kept down. The dominant
parties of the day did nothing to prove them wrong. WPA does not promise
either race to keep down the other, but has fought and fights now for a
regime of ethnic security for all. WPA therefore cannot get mass votes.
This may be too simplistic for intellectuals and scholars, but it is my
genuine reading of the situation.
I have always thought that the "most unkindest cut" of Dr Jagan's "blacks
at the bottom of the ladder" speech was not the phrase that angered people
here, but the statement about African leaders. "They were shouting
'Uhruru'. We were concerned with economic and social development."
These African leaders had been Dr Jagan's comrades, who had to serve
societies more divided, more exploited and more pre modern, because they
were more ancient, with uphill language difficulties to serve.
If these writers want to know what in my opinion contributed to the acute
African unease, which does not benefit WPA and which makes Hoyte
stronger, I can give my opinion as I have always done. It is the kind of
spirit of which we have an example in first issue of the Indian Guyanese
paper Tajmahal. I did my duty and wrote a public comment on it. My own
private and public politics have always been the same, with my alliances
known to the public. If the Tajmahal view of minorities is what some
ordinary Africans encounter from time to time in the society, all I can say is
that it will always lead to hardening. And this is not my fault. I am only the
messenger. The strongest statement I want to make is that I do not believe
that Indians are blameless, nor do I believe that Africans are blameless.
That is why there is reason for reconciliation to reach some solution. If
some Indians encounter street beating every time there is a major conflict
between PPP and the PNC, this too will lead to hardening and will help the
PPP to get stronger. That is how Guyana has been since 1955, when each of
the major races became more and more organised in its own party. I have
lived through all the political experiences and responses. Excesses of PNC
supporters make the PPP stronger and those of PPP supporters make the
PNC stronger. There is no guilty or innocent race. Thus, the late Mr
Burnham could tell the PPP in the National Assembly, "Tell your friend in
the WPA that without the PPP there will be no PNC."
Dev and Baytoram are closest to the truth when they refer to the "quick fix
of electoral politics." WPA was not conceived to contest elections. As the
situation grew worse and worse, the two race-based-not-racial-parties were
confronting each other. There was not vibrant, multi racial or non racial
party which the people could see as a third choice. And Walter Rodney
became the moving force in the change of the WPA from a pressure group
to a political party with the main aim of altering the stubborn, racial political
equation. The Jaguars are not the first to celebrate our splendid failure.
Oh another tedious moment, please. Not being a Greek scholar I don't
know Mr Sisyphus. I am sorry he had to go through it all over again. But I
hope he didn't turn around and blame anyone.
Yours faithfully
Eusi Kwayana
Friday, June 26, 1998
Civil
society must help resolve political impasse - WPA
The Working People's Alliance (WPA) wants civil society to play a prominent
role in helping to resolve the present political impasse. In a statement issued Thursday
the WPA urged civil society to set up a tribunal to hear public complaints of
discrimination and other forms of dispossession. Where the complainant requests privacy,
it said, the cases, without names, should still be released to the press. The release said
that in the circumstances of Guyana it was unwise to ignore complaints of those who were
not friends of the government and that "civil society should act where government
fails to carry out its responsibilities."
The WPA also wants civil society with the consent of the two major parties
"to appoint persons to assist and mediate" in the dialogue process between the
two parties. Also, the WPA recommends to the two major parties that they allow the
arguments about the December 15 elections to take place in the Elections Court from where
"it assumes the final word on the December elections will come... ."
The statement also urges the two parties to conclude a "non-violence
pact" as well as to concentrate on "the completion of the work of changing the
Constitution before the time of the next election" lest there be a repetition of the
events of 1997. The statement said that the party would "send proposals to the
PPP/Civic, the PNC and TUF and then to the other parties and civic groups and publish them
for general information."
The WPA said that would "prove that despite some welcomed changes since
1992, reforms are needed now, as the PPP has not respected Parliament as much as it
believes." The party also calls on the police to "make a distinction between
people who are conducting a protest and criminal offenders." It said that "the
police have no right to disturb half a block in the city with tear smoke."
As a consequence of the responsibility the police is required to exercise the
WPA said that those responsible for conducting protests must ensure peaceful protest. It
said that the marches should be held in accordance with the Public Order Act with stated
routes and police permission and conducted in a manner which shows the authorities and
others where people stand, what they suffer and what they demand or prefer and should
avoid frightening fellow citizens.
The WPA statement noted that the recent physical attacks on media practitioners
in the course of their work are to be deplored. However, it said that in one-sidedness and
intolerance, both sides are supported by television stations of noticeable indiscretion.
These stations should show more respect for all their listeners by setting some acceptable
standards for themselves, the party said.
Moreover, the statement noted that it should be frankly admitted that verbal abuse is an
active form of abuse. Thus it added that "while those claiming to be PNC supporters
have inflicted physical and verbal abuse on persons appearing to be PPP supporters, PPP
supporters have long inflicted verbal abuse on those appearing to be PNC supporters. Those
Indians who stand out against the PPP/Civic suffer special discrimination and abuse, along
with the traditional PNC supporters and other opposition persons."
Monday, June 22, 1998
The
Associated Press
Police Fire at Guyana
Protesters
GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) -- Police fired tear gas and pellet guns Monday
to disperse hundreds of protesters demanding that Guyana's new president resign.
Four people were injured in a fire that heavily damaged the finance
ministry, but it was not immediately clear if it was related to the political unrest in
the South American country.
Chanting ``Janet must go!'', about 500 protesters -- most from the opposition
People's National Congress -- marched downtown to demand that U.S.-born President Janet
Jagan resign. Some overturned police cars.
Police responded by firing tear gas and pellets at the demonstrators. Several
were slightly hurt. They fled, only to renew their protests in other areas.
Jagan, who took over the presidency after her husband, President Cheddi Jagan,
died in 1997, was officially elected to the top post on Dec. 15 in voting that the
opposition contends was fraudulent. A subsequent audit of ballots by other Caribbean
nations found irregularities but still concluded that Jagan was fairly elected.
The loser, Congress leader and former president, Desmond Hoyte, blamed the
government for backed out of a deal to discuss constitutional reforms to give the two main
ethnic groups a more equal share in government.
Race riots broke out following the elections as Guyanese of African descent,
who primarily support Hoyte's party, protested the win by Jagan's party, backed mainly by
people of East Indian descent.
Jagan said Sunday she would not step down.
Sunday, June 21, 1998
Audit team report leaves many questions
unanswered
Dear Editor,
With every passing day there is a new dimension to the contents of the Caricom
Audit Commission's Report. I am puzzled by the chairman's latest (last?) correction - if a
ballot cannot by law be cast without the production of the voter's identification card,
that vote ought not to be counted.
Mr Cross and his team were in Guyana for a number of weeks during which period
voter identification cards for voters in certain electoral regions were not available or
could not be found or accounted for. Surely, the totals should have been reduced
accordingly because those votes with corresponding voter identification cards ought not to
be regarded as valid votes.
Did the Audit Commission, therefore, have the competence to deduct those votes
as being invalid in as much as it is understood that the commission counted as valid votes
some of the ballots which had previously been disregarded as spoilt votes being votes
which were not properly marked as required by the law but nevertheless clearly indicated
the choice of the voter, or was the function of the commission under the law authorising
the audit restricted to merely counting the ballots as they were found in the ballot boxes
when opened?
If the latter, then the audit would seem to have been a costly and an
inconclusive exercise. The identification cards reportedly found by the chairman of the
elections commission almost at the end of the commission's work - where were they all of
this time?
They could not have been in the appropriate ballot boxes or they would have
been retrieved there when the ballot boxes were opened by the Audit commission in the
presence of the representatives of the political parties that contested the elections.
Like the statements of poll they may have gone to the Olympics and returned!
The functions of the Audit commission according to the menu of measures in the Herdmanston
Accord were, without prejudice to any litigation arising out of the December 15 elections,
to carry out an independent inquiry the first stage being an urgent review of the due
process of the count on and after 15 December, including the role of the elections
commission.
The audit was to be carried out pursuant to the terms of reference for the
audit contained in the Caricom agreement for the audit which required "the
ascertainment of the votes that were duly cast for the respective political parties"
In the second stage, the Audit commission was expected to carry out an audit of systemic
aspects of the electoral process, including the post-balloting phase.
Did the Audit commission, therefore, restrict itself to a recounting of the
ballots in the ballot boxes as delivered to the commission - as they received and found
them - leaving their validity or invalidity to be decided later by the court hearing and
determining an election petition? Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Audit commission
declared slight variations in the results as declared by the elections commission at the
same time refraining from pronouncing on whether or not a ballot was validly cast?
Also, the Audit commission presumably combined stages 1 and 2 of the audit
process, whereas under the terms of the Herdmanston Accord, the recounting process and the
forensic inquiry into the balloting process were expected to be two separate stages of the
exercise - stage 1 and 2. The commission did announce that in their perception it did not
seem possible to maintain the separation of the two exercises.
The commission, therefore, seemed to have cramped the two stages within the
confines of the first time - frame as extended. How much of a proper forensic exercise was
in fact accomplished when one recollects such things as admissions by the elections
commission to electoral documents having been reconstructed (whatever that means!),
unsigned polling statements and the like.
What was the Audit commission's treatment of reported tampered seals and
padlocks on the ballot boxes, the breakdown of the after-poll security arrangements for
the ballot boxes, the transportation of the ballot boxes by unauthorised persons and the
resulting inordinate delays in their arrival at the place of counting?
Surely a forensic exercise required an in-depth investigation by the Audit
commission. Was this done? Perhaps the Audit commission was constrained by the time factor
and was also being careful not to usurp the functions of the court hearing an election
petition at a later date.
Finally, Mr Cross's explanation of what is meant (in the report) by the
reference to the absence of fraud with respect to the ballot is being conveniently ignored
by those who contend that the conduct of the elections passed the test of fairness and
even by sections of the media commenting on the commission's report.
The audit commission should have exercised greater care in the use of language
in this particular instance in the charged political atmosphere prevailing in Guyana! Was
it too much to expect that the media would have helped to quell the unwarranted claims of
the political parties as to the findings of the audit commission?
Yours faithfully
Observer
Where do you stand on Audit report?
Dear Sir,
The significant shifts in your editorial position on the Caricom Audit Commission's
(CAC) Report is fascinating. In your editorial of June 03, 1998 you adopted a position
that "no fraudulent ballots" is "the single most important attribute of the
report as it cuts to the core of the dilemma." You concluded that the CAC accepted
that Doodnauth Singh's results are a reflection of the will of the people.
This position is at variance with the editorial of the previous day which predicted
that the report will benefit both sides. It was therefore not surprising that your
editorial lambasted the PPP for its intransigent position in negotiations. The CAC report
did not give them the moral ground to behave in such a manner.
In your June 15 publication you again shifted position contending that the CAC was
constrained and therefore could not pronounce on the validity of the process but "the
CAC then left it for the obvious conclusions to be drawn".
You restated your position that there was no fraud. However, on this occasion you were
honest enough to put it forward as your view and not that of the CAC. Finally, we are
getting somewhere. However, this is not enough. If you hope to be accepted by society at
large as a respectable member of civil society, then you must do the right thing:
Apologise for your dishonest and misleading editorial in your June 03, 1998 issue.
It is apparent that your newspaper has no clear position on the CAC report. One
possible reason for this is that your editorial apparently reflects individual views
rather than the newspaper's position. This I believe will do more harm than good. Please,
refrain from comment until the people at the Stabroek
News can agree on the virtues of the report.
So much for the inconsistencies in your editorials. Permit me to make some brief
comments on the CAC report.
A major element of the CAC's Terms of Reference was the ascertainment of the votes that
were duly cast for the respective political parties. I understand this to mean, votes
legally cast. The CAC failed to address this fundamental issue adequately in the report.
However, at the press conference following the release of the report Justice Cross
admitted that he could not say if the votes were duly cast. It is strange that in the
report he chose to say that "....the recount varied only marginally". This was
not his mandate. His mandate was to ascertain duly cast votes and since he could not do
that he should have put into the report what he said at the press conference. We will not
be confused by the statements "no fraudulent ballots" and ".......varied
only marginally...."
In the body of the report significant discrepancies were found with Voters I.D. Cards.
The initial report stated that some 45,000 electors voted without I.D. Cards hence
attempts at reconciling ballots with votes cast proved futile. However, in the conclusion
Justice Cross shifted from I.D. Cards which were not found to the authenticity of I.D.
Cards which were found.
Even if Justice Cross subsequently changed the numbers, the fact that deception was
attempted in the initial report tells the entire story.
One must also wonder why the conclusion only commented on Statements of Poll for
Regions 4 and 6. It was mentioned in the body of the report that in all ten regions many
Statements of Polls were not in order. So why confine the conclusion to Regions 4 and 6.
However, even if one accepts Justice Cross' conclusion on Statements of Poll, the
validity of the process is still in question. It must be understood that
"majority" means more than 50%. So! Even if over 40% or 39% of the ballot boxes
or Statements of Poll were tampered with, the results are still compromised.
Mr Editor, it must be understood that the PNC supporters have the right to due process.
Yours faithfully
James McAlister
Editor's note:
The editorial of June 2 did not predict that the report would benefit both sides. It
said "unfortunately the odds are that both sides will manage to cull from its pages
evidence to strengthen their negotiating position in the wrangles to come". All those
who write editorials for Stabroek News agree
that the Audit Report, though by no means of the quality one had hoped for, essentially
confirmed the official election results. In particular, the Summary of Findings of the
Audit Commission at Conclusion of Stage l on page 47 of the Report states:
l. The Audit Commission's examination of l843 boxes of ballots cast in all ten regions
did not reveal any fraudulent ballots. The secret code was evident in all ballots
scrutinised.
2. The CAC found that the results of their recount varied only marginally from that of
the final results declared by the Chief Elections Officer.
This is coupled with the fact that the votes were counted at the close of the poll
throughout the country in the presence of party polling agents. Any discrepancies would
have been apparent then to the party representatives, nothing done subsequently could have
affected that count, which is the basis of the results.
|
|
PNC
Website News Reports Jan. 1998
Sitnews
PPP Rigging of the `97 Elections
ALLIANCE
JOINS TUF IN CALL FOR BOX-BY-BOX RECOUNT
WPA
CONDEMS ATTACK ON INNOCENT PERSONS AND SHOOTING OF PROTESTERS BY POLICE
Alliance's Letter to
Elections Commissioner
Saxakali Calls for Peace and Boycotts for Restoring
Democracy in Guyana
Keeping the Natives at Bay: Janet Jagan in Guyana
Saxakali calls for
Reservations or Quota System to End Race Problems in Guyana
Call for full
disclosure of all the facts in the 1997 Elections
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
Call for full disclosure of all the
facts in the 1997 Elections
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for full disclosure of all the
facts in the 1997 Elections
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
Call for full
disclosure of all the facts in the 1997 Elections
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
Call for full disclosure of all the
facts in the 1997 Elections
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for full disclosure of all the
facts in the 1997 Elections
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
Call for full
disclosure of all the facts in the 1997 Elections
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
Call for full disclosure of all the
facts in the 1997 Elections
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for full disclosure of all the
facts in the 1997 Elections
the voices of
all must be heard
Call for Quota
System to End Race Problems
|
