apnu final report on examination & review of gecom's sops

THE VISION

A PARTNERSHIP FOR NATIONAL UNITY is committed to the creation of a Guyana in which citizens can live productive lives free from the ravages of poverty, secure in their homes and in their communities and are able to enjoy the benefits of political, economic and cultural development and freedom.

Telephone: 592-225-8348

A Partnership for National Unity

61 Hadfield Street Werk-en-Rust Georgetown

Guyana

Email: [email protected] URL: www.voteapnu.com

Facebook: APNU.Guyana Twitter: @APNUGuyana

February 28th 2012 Final Report Statements of Poll Examination – Meetings between APNU & GECOM Dear All, APNU Team: Guyana Election Commissions (GECOM) Team Fitzroy Corlette Gocool Boodoo – Chief Election Officer Ronald Backer Beverly Critchlow – Voter Registration Manager Malcolm Harripaul Ganesh Latchnarine – Internal Auditor, GECOM George Vaughn Deolall Ramlall – Returning Officer Region 4 Nigel Hinds Keith Lowenfield – Asst. Chief Elections Officer

Lawrence Duncan – Logistics Coordinator The APNU team had five meetings with GECOM from January 23 to February 20 2012. The findings recorded in our two previous reports dated January 23 and February 5 2012 (Annex 1 & Annex 2) are summarized herein, along with the findings from our most recent meeting with GECOM on February 20, 2012. The prevailing takeaway from our examination of the Statements of Polls (SOPs) among other key points is that multiple instances of misconduct, malpractice and document falsification occurred – from the missing final list of polling stations, preparation of SOPs, counting of party votes on SOPs, announcement of final election results and the arithmetic used to arrive at the summary votes made known in the gazetted results. Facts Confirming GECOM Mismanagement & Misconduct

1. A final list of polling stations was never provided by GECOM to the political parties and stakeholders that matched the polling stations used on Election Day - November 28, 2011.

2. The party votes on the Statements of Polls does not total to the votes attributed to each party in GECOM final count (see Annex 4).

3. Arising from point two above the final election results and the results gazetted by GECOM are incorrect.

4. Deputy Regional Officers prepared several SOPs that were unsigned by presiding officers or polling agents, these SOPs were then scanned and distributed to the contesting parties via compact disc with the stated communiqué that the Statements of Polls were copies of originals - Cleary false.

5. GECOM absence of a defined policy on use of SOPs allows for the use of copies of SOPs instead of originals in the final count; as a result GECOM does not have in storage original Statement of Polls for multiple polling stations.

6. Arising from point one above GECOM is unable to provide a final list of the private residences used as polling stations.

2

7. Illegible copies were used by GECOM in tabulating and computing the SOPs ultimately resulting in flawed results being published.

Instances & Opportunities for Fraud and Malpractice As noted in our Interim Report (see Annex 2) we also extended our SOPs examination to issues such as the final listing for private residences, the computation of GECOM final results, GECOM policy on the receipt and use of SOP originals vs. SOP copies, scanned SOPs and the Gazetted Results, herein we confirmed that opportunities for fraud and malpractice were plentiful.

A. In Regions 3 & 4 several Statements of Polls were identified with forged signatures.

B. The SOPs are designed with three columns: the polling station identification and the votes of the individual parties are in column one, the sum of party votes, spoilt votes and rejected votes are in column two and signatures of the Presiding Officer and Polling Agents are in the third column. The design of the SOP makes it susceptible to fraud and manipulation. In multiple instances the individual filling out column one did not fill out column two. Column two contains the sum of the party votes and the individual filling out column two can selectively modify column one votes on the SOP to arrive at a desired total.

C. Aside from the illegal repetitive signatures by one individual on several Statements of Poll, it

seemed standard practice for more than one person to write up the SOP. The possibilities for manipulation are then increased, especially as it relates to the totaling of the votes in column two of the SOP.

D. GECOM was unable to provide a final list of private residences (see Annex 6) used for voting as

promised by both Mr. Boodoo and Mr. Ramlall at each meeting they attended. An examination of Annex 6 demonstrates that APNU could potentially have over 5,000 more votes in Region Four with PPP/C votes declining in Region Four by a similar amount. Mr. Boodoo and Mr. Ramlall indicated several changes were made in the last five days to the private residence list prior to the day of elections – creating an open opportunity for fraud and malpractice.

E. The illegal introduction of Statements of Polls as acknowledged in the Organization of American

States (OAS) report; also we cannot rule out Statements of Polls being introduced after the elections and included in the final count that were not on any List of Polling Stations provided to the contesting parties due to the non-existence of a final list of Polling Stations.

F. Valid votes as a percentage of eligible voters for the National Elections were 72%, while private

residences valid votes as a percentage of eligible voters averaged 75% (see Annex 3). This occurrence is quite unusual as private residencies tend to be used in less densely populated areas.

G. Mr. Ramlall acknowledged that the scanned data provided to the political parties could not be

relied on, as he saw several instances where data was transposed incorrectly. The Chief Election Officer claimed he had no involvement with the scanned documents provided to the political parties.

H. As evidenced in Region One (Annex 5) where APNU won one seat by having one more vote than PPP/C in the Regional Seat Allocation. The evidence is clear that each vote is material and the introduction of a single or a few unlisted and/or manufactured SOP could change the seats allocated to a party.

I. In Region Two APNU fell short of gaining a Regional Seat by 229 votes, it is in these scenarios

that the points made in 1-7 above and the alphabetical points noted herein magnify the importance of the need for good practice, proper conduct and the need to adhere to the stated policies of GECOM.

J. Ballot Box #4681 is significant for several reasons, particularly with one hundred votes

unaccounted for as illustrated below. The division name is Vigilance/Nonpariel (North) that voted heavily in favour of APNU. However, the vote count amounted to only 42% of eligible voters and the votes cast were summed inaccurately – see illustration below. The discrepancy is

3

more glaring when Ballot Box #4682 at the same Division and Polling Place showed a 73% voter turnout for APNU.

Ballot Box No Div. #

Votes Cast

Rejected Ballots

Valid Votes APNU AFC PPPC TUF

Sum of Valid Votes

4681 421122C 256 4 252 121 11 19 1 152

K. Special Case: The private residence of Mr. Oodwalack Prashad of Region 4 Good Hope with

Ballot Boxes 4633-4634 contained questionable signatures, illegible data, zero spoilt votes and 99% of the votes going to PPP/C.

L. As mentioned on Annex 5 to this report the Top Up Seats computation would have enabled APNU to gain another seat in the National Assembly if approximately 190 more valid votes were secured by APNU and PPP/C had 190 less votes in the National Count (a 380 vote swing). The illustration below shows how the seat allocation would have changed if the 380 vote swing did occur - as 27 seats would have gone to APNU and PPP/C would have won 31 seats:

Valid Votes 342,236 APNU AFC EBDA PPP/C TUF Total

Seats 65 139,868 35,333 0 166,150 885 342,236

National Quota 5,265 27 7 - 31 0 65

Conclusion Our limited review of the SOPs discovered significant discrepancies as noted in the foregoing, along with the substantial impact the irregularities very likely had on determining who won the presidency and parliamentary seat allocation as shown in points H & L above and more particularly in Annexes 5 & 6. Along with other differences such as the SOPs numbers not matching the final numbers published by GECOM, the abnormal results from the use of private residences and the non-existence of a final list of Polling Stations matching Polling Stations used on Elections Day; it is our opinion that the Election Results assembled by GECOM does not provide a reliable basis to determine who won the Presidency. We believe that serious flouting of the stated policies and procedures of GECOM occurred, along with misconduct and illegal actions by GECOM representatives. A Partnership for National Unity (A.P.N.U) February 28th 2012

4

January 23, 2011 Annex 1 - Initial Report Statements of Poll - Verification Meeting between APNU & GECOM Dear All, APNU Team: Guyana Election Commissions (GECOM) Team Fitzroy Corlette Gocool Boodoo – Chief Election Officer Ronald Backer Beverly Critchlow – Voter Registration Manager Malcolm Harripaul Ganesh Latchnarine – Internal Auditor, GECOM George Vaughn Deolall Ramlall – Returning Officer Region 4 Nigel Hinds Mr. Duncan We focused our attention primarily on Region Three and selectively on Region Four. We knew going into the meeting that Region 4 submissions on Compact Disc (CD) to the Parties contesting the General Election and statements made in the media by GECOM relating to the documents were misleading and false. The misleading and false information we knew beforehand related to ten of the Statements of Poll on the CD for Region Four that were not original or copies from the Statements of Poll but instead represented several Statements of Poll written by the same District Regional Officer, then scanned and included on the CD that was submitted to the Election Parties and other Stakeholders with the clear communiqué from GECOM that the SOPS were originals or copies of the original. In addition to the foregoing we found the following areas of improper procedures, misconduct and/or falsehoods:

• In Region 3 & 4 we identified several SOPS that had forged signatures • Deputy Regional Officers wrote up several SOPS after the original SOPS were prepared • Illegible carbon copies were used by GECOM in computing the Election Results • A SOPS in Region 3 had zero votes for all parties yet at least seven persons signed the SOPS such

as the Presiding Officer, Polling Agents, Counting Agents, and other electoral representatives who seemingly did not vote

• Multiple instances of one individual writing several SOPS, with the SOPS being for different polling stations and different locations

1. Multiple instances of two individuals processing data entry on one SOPS 2. Mr. Boodoo indicated that the original copy of the SOPS should be posted outside the Polling

Station, yet over 98% of the SOPS we reviewed at GECOM were originals 3. GECOM was unable to provide a list of private residences used as Polling Stations 4. The names of polling agents and counting agents were written on the SOPS by someone other

than the agents 5. Mr. Boodoo as Chief Election Officer claimed he had nothing to do with the scanned documents

on the CD, even though these documents were used to announce the Election Results 6. Mr. Boodoo stated that he was aware of four SOPSs submitted on the CD and the SOPs were

different from the original SOPS, yet this information was not conveyed to the parties that contested the elections

7. There is a special case of a Polling Station at the residence of Mr. Oodwalack Prashad of Region 4 Good Hope for Ballot Boxes 4633-4634 that contained forgeries, illegible data, zero rejected votes, with 99% of votes going to PPP/C, among other discrepancies to put it mildly

8. GECOM was unable to produce a list of Polling Stations that were changed or consolidated in the five days prior to the elections

The fourteen points above confirm serious flouting of the stated policies and procedures of GECOM and in some cases illegal conduct by GECOM. We expect to continue the exercise at GECOM office on Wednesday January 25, 2012; however, we strongly feel that the information we have confirmed should be made public while we continue the Election Results Review.

5

Respectfully,

………………………………… Clifton Nigel Hinds, BSc, MBA, CPA Nigel Hinds & Associates Financial Services PS Rushed Report

6

February 5, 2012 Annex 2 - Interim Report Statements of Poll Examination – Meetings between APNU & GECOM Dear All, APNU Team: Guyana Election Commissions (GECOM) Team Fitzroy Corlette Gocool Boodoo – Chief Election Officer Ronald Backer Beverly Critchlow – Voter Registration Manager Malcolm Harripaul Ganesh Latchnarine – Internal Auditor, GECOM George Vaughn Deolall Ramlall – Returning Officer Region 4 Nigel Hinds Keith Lowenfield – Asst. Chief Elections Officer

Lawrence Duncan – Logistics Coordinator The report herein covers the four meetings with GECOM from January 23 to February 1 2012. In our Initial Report dated January 23, 2012 (see - Annex 1), we detailed several instances of misconduct and document falsification by GECOM and their representatives. In this report we have identified specific Statements of Poll (SOPS) with the Ballot Box numbers (see attached – Annex 1) where offenses occurred. The selected SOPS examined over the period are from Regions Three thru Nine. The meetings subsequent to our first meeting on January 23, 2102 primarily served to validate multiple discrepancies that extended from Regions 3 thru 9 with the core of the incidents taking place in Regions 3 thru 6. We also extended our SOPS examination to issues such as the final listing for private residences, the computation of GECOM final results, GECOM policy SOPSs delivery system, the receipt and use of SOPS originals vs. SOPS copies, scanned SOPS and the Gazetted Results. Additional areas (see Annex 2 – Initial Report) of improper procedure, misconduct and/or falsehoods and inaccuracies:

A. The individual SOPS does not match the Gazetted Final Results (see Annex 4). B. GECOM were unable to provide a final list of private residences used for voting. The list was

promised at each meeting and Mr. Lowenfield was identified as the officer to provide the list. Mr. Lowenfield never returned to any of the meetings after January 23 or sent any documentation to us. The Residences List we currently have (see Annex 3) is outdated as acknowledged by Mr. Ramlall as several changes were made in the last five days before the elections; we cannot rule out private residences being added after November 28, 2011; as we never had a final private residence list.

C. Valid votes as a percentage of eligible voters for the National Elections were 72%, while valid votes as a percentage of eligible voters averaged 75% for private residences (see Annex 3). This occurrence is quite unusual as private residencies tend to be used in less densely populated areas.

D. GECOM does not have original SOPS for multiple polling stations. E. Mr. Ramlall acknowledged that the scanned data provided to the political parties could not be

relied on, as he saw several instances where data was transposed incorrectly. F. In Region 3 as documented in Annex 2, a SOP from Sand Hills Primary from Division

Dunoon/Hiami at Polling Place Sand Hills Primary was examined and showed signatures of nine polling agents, yet not a single vote was recorded for any party on the SOPS. Annex 2 also refers to discrepancies for specific Ballot Boxes.

G. As evidenced in Annex 5 where APNU won one seat in Region one by having a single vote more than PPP/C and fell short of winning a seat in Region Three by 229 votes. The situation described in point F above needs further examination, and so do similar cases with discrepancies in Region Three and other Regions.

H. Ballot Box #4681 is significant for several reasons, particularly with one hundred votes unaccounted for as illustrated below. The division name is Vigilance/Nonpariel (North) that voted heavily in favour of APNU. However, due to the votes unaccounted for only 42% of eligible voters were recorded. The discrepancy is more glaring when Ballot Box #4682 at the same Division and Polling Place showed a 73% voter turnout.

7

Ballot Box No Div. #

Votes Cast

Rejected Ballots


Sum of Valid Votes

4681 421122C 256 4 252 121 11 19 1 152

I. As mentioned by Christopher Ram and shown on Annex 5 to this report the Top Up Seats

computation would have enabled APNU to gain another seat in the National Assembly if approximately 190 more valid votes were secured by APNU and PPP/C had 190 less votes in the National Count (a 360 vote swing). The illustration below demonstrates how the seat allocation would have changed, as 27 seats would have gone to APNU and PPP/C would have won 31 seats:

Valid Votes 342,236 APNU AFC EBDA PPP/C TUF Total

Seats 65 139,868 35,333 0 166,150 885 342,236

National Quota 5,265 26.565 6.71 - 31.556 0.17 65

J. Considering we only did a limited review of the SOPS discrepancies and the situation in point H above, among other irregularities such as the SOPS numbers not matching the final numbers published by GECOM as noted in point A above; there is a strong case to make that at a minimum another seat was won by ANPU.

We continue to believe that serious flouting of the stated policies and procedures of GECOM occurred, along with misconduct and illegal actions by GECOM representatives. Respectfully, ………………………………… Clifton Nigel Hinds, CPA

8

Annex 3

Private Residences Valid Votes as a Percentage of Eligible Voters at Private Residences

Values Regions Valid Votes_ APNU_ AFC_ PPP/C_ TUF_ Eligibile Voters_

1 341 72 65 197 7 703

2 108 2 21 85 - 144

3 765 24 54 686 1 1,017

4 36,886 15,572 2,264 19,011 39 48,908

6 7,812 1,288 1,965 4,548 11 10,270

7 927 530

54 334 9 1,631

8 42 3 25 11 3 48

9 16 8 6 2 - 24

10 118 40 13 64 1 289

Grand Total 47,015

17,539

4,467

24,938 71 63,034

75%

9

Annex 4:

Actual Sum of Statements of Polls Differs from GECOM Published Results

Party & Region

Statement of Polls GECOM Differences

APNU 1

887

887 -

APNU 2

3,287

3,287 -

APNU 3

14,027

14,028 (1)

APNU 4

84,726

84,828 (102)

APNU 5

8,906

8,906 -

APNU 6

10,798

10,798 -

APNU 7

2,851

2,843 8

APNU 8

739

739 -

APNU 9

1,959

2,004 (45)

APNU 10

11,341

11,358 (17)

AFC 1

785

786 (1)

AFC 2

2,086

2,086 -

AFC 3

3,345

3,343 2

AFC 4

10,567

10,635 (68)

AFC 5

3,079

3,079 -

AFC 6

11,647

11,634 13

AFC 7

508

505 3

AFC 8

995

995 -

AFC 9

953

946 7

AFC 10

1,386

1,324 62

PPP/C 1

3,474

3,472 2

PPP/C 2

12,555

12,555 -

PPP/C 3

33,414

33,424 (10)

PPP/C 4

60,899

60,851 48

PPP/C 5

13,558

13,558 -

10

PPP/C 6

32,268

32,360 (92)

PPP/C 7

2,375

2,376 (1)

PPP/C 8

741

741 -

PPP/C 9

4,154

4,135 19

PPP/C 10

2,782

2,868 (86)

TUF 1

55

55 -

TUF 2

51

51 -

TUF 3

69

70 (1)

TUF 4

188

201 (13)

TUF 5

29

29 -

TUF 6

80

83 (3)

TUF 7

71

84 (13)

TUF 8

95

95 -

TUF 9

178

183 (5)

TUF 10

32

34 (2)

Grand Total 341,940

342,236 (296)

THE VISION


Telephone: 592-225-8348



Guyana



Annex 5

National Assembly_Seat Allocation Process - Guyana General Elections November 28, 2011

Step 1 Total Votes from General Elections as per GECOM 342,236 Divide by Total Number of Seats in National Assembly 65

National Quota to gain a Seat in The National Assembly 5,265

Step Two APNU AFC EBDA PPP/C TUF Total

Total Votes for each Party as per GECOM 139,678 35,333 0 166,340 885 342,236

Seats allocated to each Party in Parliament 26.529 6.71 - 31.593 0.17 65

12

Step Three & Step Four - Combined in Table Below Regional Election Results as per GECOM

Description Regional

Seats Constituency

Quota APNU AFC EBDA PPP/C TUF Total Comments

Region 1 2 2,591

868

787 0

3,458

69 5,182 Initial Vote % of Constituency Quota 34% 30% 0% 133% 3%

First Round Seat Allocation 0 0 0 1 0

First Round Vote Surplus

868

787 0

867

69 APNU won seat by one vote margin

2nd Round Vote % of Constituency Quota 34% 30% 0% 33% 3%

2nd Round Vote Surplus

868

787 0

867

69

2nd Round Vote Surplus Allocated 1 0 0 0 0

Total 2 1 0 0 1 0


Seats Constituency

Quota APNU AFC EBDA PPP/C TUF Total

Region 2 2 8,967

3,254

2,159 0

12,450

71 17,934 Initial Vote % of Constituency Quota 36% 24% 139% 1%



3,254

2,159 0

3,483

71 APNU NEEDED 229 more votes to win a Region 2 seat

2nd Round Vote % of Constituency Quota 36% 24% 0% 39% 1%


3,254

2,159 0

3,483

71

2nd Round Vote Surplus Allocated 0 0 0 1

Total 2 0 0 0 2 0

13

Description Regional Seats

Constituency Quota

APNU AFC EBDA PPP/C TUF Total

Region 3 3 16,896 13,852 3,508 0 33,232 96 50,688

Initial Vote % of Constituency Quota 82% 21% 197% 1% First Round Seat Allocation 0 0 0 1 0


13,852

3,508 0

16,336

96 2nd Round Vote % of Constituency

Quota 82% 21% 0% 97% 1%


13,852

3,508 0

16,336

96


Total 3 1 0 0 2 0


Seats Constituency


Region 4 7 22,295

83,998

11,291 0

60,344

435 156,068

Initial Vote % of Constituency Quota 377% 51% 0% 271% 2% First Round Seat Allocation 3 0 0 2 0


17,112

11,291 0

15,753


Quota 77% 51% 0% 71% 2%


17,112

11,291 0

15,753

435


Total 7 4 0 0 3 0


Seats Constituency


Region 5 2 12,747

8,804

3,154 0

13,470

66 25,494 Initial Vote % of Constituency Quota 69% 25% 106% 1%


14


8,804

3,154 0

723


Quota 69% 25% 0% 6% 1%


8,804

3,154 0

723

66


Total 2 1 0 0 1 0


Seats Constituency


Region 6 3 18,314

10,593

12,008 152

32,042




10,593

12,008 152

13,728


Quota 58% 66% 1% 75% 1%


10,593

12,008 152

13,728

147


Total 3 0 1 0 2 0


Seats Constituency


Region 7 2 2,897

2,838

503 0

2,373




2,838

503 0

2,373


Quota 98% 17% 0% 82% 3%


2,838

503 0

2,373

80


15

Total 2 1 0 0 1 0


Seats Constituency


Region 8 1 2,541

693

983 0

744




693

983 0

744


Quota 27% 39% 0% 29% 5%


693

983 0

744

121


Total 1 0 1 0 0 0


Seats Constituency


Region 9 1 7,276

1,982

939 0

4,111




1,982

939 0

4,111


Quota 27% 13% 0% 57% 3%


1,982

939 0

4,111

244


Total 1 0 0 0 1 0


Seats Constituency


Region 10 2 7,672

11,135

1,465 0 2,684


16



3,464

1,465 0

2,684


Quota 45% 19% 0% 35% 1%


3,464

1,465 0

2,684

59


Total 2 2 0 0 0 0

Total Regional Seats 25 10 2 0 13 0 341,262 GECOM Regional Count

Step Five - Top Up Seats Seats Allocated to each Party in Parliament less Regional Seats Won: 16.53 4.71 - 18.59 0.17 APNU NEEDED 229

more votes in Region 2 plus 151 more votes overall to win two more seats - total of 380 votes

Total Seats for each Party: Step 2

less Step 5 26 7 - 0 32 0

Rounded down Rounded up

THE VISION


Telephone: 592-225-8348



Guyana



Annex 6 Private Residences Number Count & % used per Region

Region Polling Stations. Percentage

1 8 3% 2 1 0% 3 5 2% 4 184 68% 6 50 18% 7 14 5% 8 5 2% 9 2 1%

10 3 1%

Grand Total 272 100%

Private Residences Valid Votes & Percentage per Region Region Valid_Votes % of PR Votes by Region 1 341 0.7% 2 108 0.2% 3 765 1.6%

4

36,886 78%

6

7,812 16.6% 7 927 2% 8 42 0.1% 9 16 0.0%

10 118 0%

Grand Total

47,015 100.0%

18

Summary of Region 4 Valid Votes Including Private Residences

Region Party Seats Vote Percentage 4 APNU 4 84,828 54% 4 AFC 0 10,635 7% 4 PPP/C 3 60,851 39%

4 TUF 0 201 0.1%

Region 4 Total 7 156,515 100%

Summary of Region 4 Votes Excluding Private Residences

Region Party Seats Vote Percentage 4 APNU 4 69,256 58% 15,572 4 AFC 0 8,371 7% 4 PPP/C 3 41,840 35% 19,011

4 TUF 0 201 0%

Region 4 Total 7 119,668 100% 3,439

Region 4 Private Residences Valid Votes & Percentage by Party

Valid Votes APNU AFC PPPC TUF 36,886 15,572 2,264 19,011 39

% 42% 6% 52% 0.11%

Region 4 Private Residences Valid Votes & Percentage by Party assuming overall trend

Valid Votes APNU AFC PPPC TUF 36,886 19,991 2,506 14,341 47

% 54% 7% 39% 0.13%

Region 4 PRs Valid Votes & % by Party as per summary without Private Residences


36,886 21,347 2,580 12,897 62 8,451 % 58% 7% 35% 0.17%

Vote Swing:

Using Trend 4,419 4,670 9,090

No PR 5,775 6,114 11,890

19

A Partnership for National Unity - Review of GECOM Statements of Poll Jan 23 to Feb 20, 2012

Guyana National ElectionsNovember 28, 2011

GECOM Mismanagement and Misconduct1. A final list of Polling Stations was not provided to

Political Parties by GECOM2. Votes on SOPs do not add up to GECOM gazetted

results3. 68% of all Private Residences used as Polling

Stations across Guyana were located in Region 4with PPP/C winning 52% of the votes cast at theresidences in Region 4.

4. DROs prepared several SOPs. No signatures from Presiding Officers or Agents were on the SOPs; these were submitted byGECOM on compact disc to the political parties with theassurance that the SOPs represented original copies.

20

Con’t:

5. Illegible copies of SOPs were used byGECOM in computing the Final Votes for theElection Results

7. Region 4 valid votes for private residencestotaled 36,886: APNU 15,572 - 42%; PPP/C19,011 - 52%; AFC 2,264 - 6% and TUF 0.1%

6. The final list of private residences used aspolling stations were never provided to theparties – See point 3 above.

Con’t:

8. Multiple instances were discovered of oneindividual writing up several SOPs for different

polling stations at different locations

9. Several Statements of Poll had forgedsignatures particularly in Regions Three andFour

21

Con’t:10. Nationally valid votes as a % of eligible voters

were 72% while for vote percentage at private residences averaged 75%

12. Mr. Boodoo as Chief Election Officer statedthat he played no part in providing thedocuments submitted on compact disc to thepolitical parties.

11. The Chief Returning Officer for Region 4 Mr.Ramlall admitted that scanned data providedto the political parties was unreliable as he sawseveral instances of data transposedincorrectly

Con’t:

13. GECOM was unable to produce a list of pollingstations that were changed or consolidated in the five days prior to the elections.

14. PPP/C won 78% of all actual votes at PrivateResidences used as Polling Stations acrossGuyana. Nationally the PPP/C percentage of actual votes won amounted to 49%.

22

Con’t: Best Divisions for PPP/C in Region 415. Private Residences APNU AFC PPP/C TUF

LUSIGNAN (EAST) 50 137 1,484 1GOOD HOPE 90 120 1,478 2MON REPOS (WEST) 31 71 1,424 3FOULIS 68 108 1,173 0

Total 239 436 5,559 6

The numbers obtained by PPP/C exceed by over60% the Division Votes APNU obtained at PrivateResidences in their Strongholds.

Con’t:

16. An extract from the Statements of Poll in GoodHope showed the private residence of OodwalackPrashad with ballot boxes 4,633 and 4,634 was mired in forgeries and illegible data, of the 360valid votes over 99% of the votes were for PPP/C

23

Con’t:

17. Ballot Box # 4681 used at Bladen Hall Multilateralis significant for several reasons, particularly with100 votes unaccounted for in the tabulation.Residents at Bladen Hall voted heavily in favour

of APNU.However, the vote count amounted to 42% of eligiblevoters, also the votes cast were summedincorrectly. The discrepancy is more glaringas Ballot Box # 4682 as the same polling stationshowed 73% valid votes for APNU.

Con’t:

18. The illegal introduction of Statements of Polls were acknowledged by theOAS observers, this combined with the absence of a Final List of PollingStations amounted to Malpractice and Fraud

Extract from OAS Report:1). On at least two occasions, statements of poll bypassed the system

whereby the Commissioners examined them and were insteaddelivered directly to the manual tabulation process.

WithAPNU losing a Regional Seat in Region 2 by 229 votes; it is reasonableto assume from the OAS report that a single Statement of Poll could havebypassed the control system and counted in the tabulation process.

Some individual Statements Poll have recorded over 350 votes!

24

Conclusion:

apnu final report on examination & review of gecom's sops

Documents