BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – NATIONALS of and residents on Nevis will soon be going to the polls to decide on the political party that would manage their financial and other affairs over the next five years.
However, Leader of the Concerned Citizens Movement (CCM) Hon. Vance Amory charges that a number of persons who were legally confirmed on the 2011 Register and issued identification cards had their names arbitrarily removed from the Voters List.
In an effort to have this situation rectified, Amory said his party lodged a complaint with the Electoral Commission and a meeting was subsequently held. At that meeting, he added, it was decided that the names would remain on the Voters List, but the Supervisor of Elections, Leroy Benjamin, refused to comply with the decision.
“We the leaders of the CCM decided to write to the Electoral Commission to complain about the manner in which the Registration Officer in Nevis, Ms. Bernadette Lawrence, was dealing with purported objections to the names of persons on the Voters List as at January 2011.
“A number of persons complained that they received notice to appear at a hearing one day after it had taken place. These persons were legally confirmed in accordance with the legislation that governs the Registration of Voters, but when they complained to the Electoral Office on the removal of their names, they were told that nothing could be done about it.
“My appeal to the Electoral Commission was to get the Commission, which has constitutional authority to supervise and give directions to the Supervisor of Elections on the registration of voters in St. Kitts and Nevis, to have the Commission make a decision on whether or not the action of Ms. Lawrence was legally keeping with her duties as Registration Officer,” Amory said.
He contended that Lawrence and the Supervisor of Elections were “acting capriciously and arbitrarily in seeking to remove the names of those persons from the Voters List, and by their actions they were disenfranchising persons who were legally registered to vote”.
“My approach to the Commission was to have attempts by the Registration Officer to remove legally registered names stopped,” Amory added.
Amory said too that following a meeting with the Electoral Commission on Thursday, May 26, 2011, the Chairman and Members of the Commission sent a letter to the Supervisor of Elections, which indicated that the names of those persons should remain on the Voters List because it was a violation of the National Assembly Election (Amendment) Act 2007.
He pointed out that evidence of the validity of that decision lies in the Federation’s Constitution.
And to add credence to the violation of the Act and his party’s assumption of the capricious and arbitrarily actions by the Supervisor of Elections and the Registration Officer, Amory provided three letters written and signed by the Chairman and Members of the Electoral Commission and the Supervisor of Elections.
A letter to Leroy Benjamin, dated May 26, 2011 and signed by Hesketh Benjamin, William Dore and Myrna Walwyn, Electoral Commission’s Chairman and Members respectively, states that the trio had met with Amory, Michael Perkins, Oliver Knight of the St. Kitts Electoral Office and Beaulah Mills of the Nevis Electoral Office at the Speaker Chambers, Government Headquarters, Basseterre.
The letters further states that the meeting was held regarding complaints received from the CCM “in connection with the removal of names by the Registration Officer Ms. Bernadette Lawrence of Voters who have reconfirmed and having heard the said complaints, The Commission, in accordance with the national Assembly Election (Amendment) Act 2007 as amended has determined that names of Voters who have been reconfirmed and issued with appropriate National Identification Cards (NID) shall remain on the Voters List as at January 2011”.
In response, the Elections Supervisor, in a letter dated June 2, 2011, said, “The Electoral Commission’s letter to me dated the 26thb May 2011 and our meeting on Monday 30th May refers. Upon my submission of the Court Judgments and Court Lists on the 30th May 2011, you had indicated that the Commission will withdraw and/or rescind the said letter of 26th may 2011.
“Please note that I have not yet received that withdrawal and/or rescission and while I await the said withdrawal and/or rescission the registration Officers continue to carry out their duties and functions under the law.
“I know that you are aware of the urgency of this matter and I was wondering whether the withdrawal and/or rescission of the letter of the 26th May 2011 can be effected on or before Monday 6th June 2011. Thank you very much for your continued cooperation in this very important process.”
In his second letter, the Elections Supervisor said, “Following our meeting on the 30th May 2011 and your indication that the Commission will withdraw its letter of 26th May 2011, I have decided to reduce my position in writing due to the fact that, up until this morning (7th June 2011), I did not receive any response from the Commission. Please note that I have sought and received advice in this matter from Mr. Arudranauth Gossai, Senior Crown Counsel.
“I have read sections 33 and 34 of the Constitution. You may rest assure that I am fully aware that the Commission shall supervise the Supervisor of Elections in the performance of his functions. But the operative word or duty is supervise and not the giving of directions. I view of the provisions of the constitution it is my position, supported as it is by the legal advice I have received, the neither the Electoral Commission nor the Supervisor of Elections has any authority whatsoever to interfere and/or direct the functions of the Registration Officers in the exercise of their functions under the National Assembly Elections Act, Cap. 2.01 and/or the Regulations made hereunder, to hear and determine claims and objections made to the Register of Voters and the Monthly Lists respectively.
“I am therefore of the opinion that the Electoral Commission has no authority to decide and instruct that “names of Voters who have been reconfirmed and issued with appropriate National Identification cards (NID) shall remain on the Voters List as at January 2011.” The Registration Officers must exercise, and continue to exercise, their functions in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulations.
“Further, I am advised by Counsel and verily believe to be true that it is most unfair, if not inappropriate, for the Commission to give an audience with members of one political party in relation to alleged complaints without also hearing from members of the other political party and other interested parties or persons. In the circumstances, I am advised that your directions are manifestly unlawful. Accordingly, I am unable to accede or give any effect to your directions. My position remains that the Registration Officers must give full and fair effect to the laws prescribed by the Parliament.”
An infuriated Amory said the contents of the Elections Supervisor’s letters clearly indicate that he intends to collaborate with the Registration Officer to disenfranchise the voters and also to usurp the authority of the Electoral Commission.
He stated that the Electoral Commission is higher ranked than the Supervisor of Elections and the former can give directions to the latter.
Quoting from the Constitution, Amory said, “Section 34(7) clearly states, ‘In the exercise of his functions under subsection (1), the Supervisor of Elections shall act in accordance with such directions as he may from time to time be given by the Electoral Commission but shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.’
The CCM’s Leader also referred to Section 34(1) which states that ‘there shall be a Supervisor of Elections whose duty it shall be to exercise general supervision over the registration of voters in elections of Representatives and over the conduct of such elections’.
He added that Section 34(5) also speaks to whom the Supervisor of Elections should report on his functions under subsection (1), noting that “he should report to the Electoral Commission”.
“The laws that govern the duty of the Supervisor of Elections are written in the Constitution, and you do not need a rocket scientist to interpret them. Even the ordinary man in the street could read and understand them. Therefore, by his actions, one is forced to conclude that the Supervisor of Elections may have some hidden agenda,” Amory said.
