June 23, 2021

Desperate masquerading posture of excuses to deliberately delay

first_imgDear Editor,Against the backdrop of the December 21, 2018, successfully debated and passed no-confidence motion in the National Assembly, agents of the fallen APNU/AFC coalition Government have adopted a desperate masquerading posture of excuses and deliberate delay.The debates further exposed the woeful Ponzi scheming on the nation by a fraudulent APNU/AFC cabal. The Government is now scampering all over in an attempt to put a spin of the constitutional directive that General and Regional Elections to elect a new Government, must be within 90 days from the date of the carried motion. This period is subject to extension if agreed upon by a majority of the National Assembly, which we know would require a miracle. It follows that after March 19, 2019, the APNU/AFC Government will be unconstitutional and illegal if there are no elections.The Government, through Basil Williams, initially advanced the frivolous delaying tactics to effect the mandatory resignation of the Cabinet, in defiance to the simplest constitutional directive. The abuse of the judicial system to effect the delay is characteristic. Others like Khemraj Ramjattan and Moses Nagamootoo from the cabal’s camp now advance their own gully positions, as they U-turn on the statements they made during the debate of the Motion.Here comes the PNC/R GECOM Commissioner Vincent Alexander, who has added to the dubious furrow, by trying to be convincing about the need for House-to-House registrations. His duplicitous approach cannot mask the real intent of delaying the elections to a significant period beyond the constitutional 90 days’ deadline. It is clear that the shallow and futile arguments have one clear objective of extending the time of this illegal APNU/AFC Government.Partial representations and obvious silence on known relevant House-to-House matters characterise the twisted connotations of Vincent Alexander. It obfuscates all credence in the statements he advances, in an effort to kerfuffle citizens and other stakeholders. The public should recognise that Alexander often publicly spews his contaminating postulations when his political party can materially benefit. It seems not to matter that it comes as an injustice to a majority of citizens. For purpose of clarity, therefore, consideration must be given as follows:Key Legislation which provides authority and the mechanisms for House-to-House activities in lieu of maintaining an acceptable List of Registrants include The National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08, The National Registration (Residents) Regulations and Amendments, Chapter 19:08 and the Elections Law Amendment Act No 2 of 2001. These legislations inform the embodiment of the GECOM Training Manual for election staff and for the Continuous Registration process since the Laws came into existence.In relation to House-to-House Registration, Section 6 (4) (a) of the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 states:“The Commissioner may establish an office situated at such place in any district, and at which there shall be received the applications for registrations of persons who are at the qualifying date resident therein or in such part thereof, as he may specify by notice published in the Gazette and, subject to anything to the contrary provided by the regulations, no divisional registrar is required to visit houses in any district or part thereof (as the case may be) in relation to which an office is so established.”Additionally, Section 6 (a) states that “the Elections Commission shall use the Official List of Electors from the 2001 General and Regional Elections as the base to commence continuing registration. Provided that at any stage the Commission may undertake such verification as necessary by a means to be determined by the Commission.”It is widely known that GECOM, over the years, had set a sufficient number of such registration Offices around the country. More importantly, they conducted nine rounds of continuous registration since 2015 using the foregoing legal basis. This was in an effort to update and cleanse the List of voters (Register of Registrants), in the lead-up to the two local Government Elections. The real impetus towards the activation of a continuous registration process, however, was driven following 2008 by the PNC/R and AFC parties, in advancing a mechanism they felt would achieve positive results in the event of snap elections based on the majority in the National Assembly.While in principle there may have been a 7-year Commission policy of updating the List through House-to-House visits, the Parties in Government rejected it when the time came around. They contended at the time that the continuous registration process was a legally approved option, which the Commission can use to update the List where appropriate.Sincerely,Neil Kumarlast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *