2020 seems to be the year of re-awakening of the Private Sector Commission
In a recent letter to the editor re. Allicock issue, I focused on the urgent need for us, as a nation, to address the issue of national ethos. I highlighted the need for us to embrace jointly agreed values and elements of Good Governance. The recent statement emanates from the Private Sector Commission in relation to their perceived need to put right ‘all that has gone wrong in the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM)’ and their assertion that “GECOM senior officials, including the Chief Returning Officer, Keith Lowenfield, and Class 4 Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, and a number of other officers who assist these officers and an Information Technology Officer, being charged in the Courts for “misconduct in public office. ” Nevertheless, to our knowledge, none of these officers have been dismissed from their employment with GECOM speaking volumes about the Private Sector Commission and their disposition to a national ethos that includes core values, responsible behavior , rule of law, honesty, transparency and fiduciary responsibility.
2020 seems to be the year of re-awakening of the Private Sector Commission. In 2006 GECOM produced a fraudulent result and a fraudulent document claiming to be the results of fair / region # 10 constituency elections and the Private Sector Commission was silently deaf. Doodnauth Singh, excused in 1997 from the Commission’s deliberations, proceeded to swear at Janet Jagan, as President, unknowingly to the Election Commission, which was still discussing the draft report of the results of the elections. The Private Sector Commission appeared comatose during and after that incident. In 2011, the then Chief Returning Officer delivered a fraudulent result to the Commission, in favor of the PPP / C, of which the Private Sector Commission was aware; privately recognized; but remained quietly silent. In 2015 the Private Sector Commission turned a blind eye to the charge of attempting to deliver false voting statements during the district results roundup. However, in 2020 the Private Sector Commission not only identifies with the allegation of wrongdoing by GECOM officials, but convicts them without trial and calls for their dismissal, even as the Courts address the ongoing saga of the Prosecutors who, nine months after the alleged offenses and five months after the declaration of results, have not yet addressed the courts on the substantive charges. The Private Sector Commission’s gesture clearly disregards ‘the presumption of innocence until guilty.’ Is that the national ethos through which the Private Sector Commission is led, one in which different measures are applied to discriminate people, despite the similarities of the alleged wrongdoings? What has been the position of the Private Sector Commission on the four public officials who were also before the courts and who failed to dismiss the charges brought against them, but appointed to public offices and their cases removed back scary under constitutional, and Director of Public Prosecution Debts? What is their view on scores of public sector workers, who are deprived of their livelihood?
I have no brief for GECOM lone workers, but I am committed to ensuring that they are not politically targeted, as has been the case with workers in other state agencies. I will also continue to call those stakeholders who appear to have agendas, as shown, in the case of the Private Sector Commission, because of their lack of transparency, inconsistency and flexibility in their dealings with GECOM employees.