Parliament Speech by the Honorable Asot Michael - Nov 2011
HON. ASOT MICHAEL M.P.
ADDRESSES THE PARLIAMENT
ON
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
(AMENDMENT) ACT 2011
Thank you Madame Speaker:
I take the floor to address an issue that is clearly the most important as it relates
to elections and our democracy. The Representation of The People Act speaks
directly to our freedom to decide who governs our country, which policies the
majority wish to see put in place, which representatives they most trust to enable
promised changes. Free and fair elections serve as a judgment in favour of or
against the incumbent administration.
Today, we are setting the rules –the laws- by which those elections will be
governed and whether the elections will be judged free and fair. Since March 23
2004, when I was elected, a new set of rules governed. They were embodied in the
Principal Act which we are again amending substantially since July last year. As
a lawmaker, I get the distinct impression that there is manipulation of the laws in
order to favour the incumbent political party over the opposition. That cannot be an
acceptable reason to change the laws.
Last year, when the Representative from Rural West the Hon. P.M presented the
amendments, he was admonished against moving forward. The discouragement
came from the opposition benches; however, a long letter addressed to that same
member also came from the then Chairman of the Electoral Commission.
Letter addressed to the Honorable Baldwin Spencer on June 21, 2010 from Sir
Gerald A. Watt
Re: The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2010
“I write in respect of the above captioned legislation which is being presently
debated in the House of Representatives and which debate is due to continue on
Tuesday, the 22nd June, 2010.”
“I would respectfully suggest to you, that there are several sections being amended,
which create, legal, constitutional and other difficulties. However, I intend in
this correspondence only to deal with two major issues which if passed into law
will have serious negative consequences for the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral
Commission (ABEC), and consequently, on the citizens of Antigua and Barbuda.
The other matters I will leave to Parliament as they are political in nature.”
Amendment of Section 4 Qualification for Registration and Right to Vote
“This amendment proposes to change the one (1) month period of residence to six
(6) months presently to address the perception that persons during the registration
period of 2004 to 2009 were moved into certain constituencies by the ALP in order
to establish the one month residency requirement and were able by this ploy to win
in the constituencies that would have otherwise been carried by your party. This
appears to be the mischief which the legislation is intended to correct.”
“In the circumstances, I feel the need to draw to your attention the fact, that apart
from the misinformation that has been put in the public domain, your party has not
to date been able to provide any empirical evidence or even reliable information in
this regard, and appears to be relying on political and public hearsay. Be that as it
may, I feel obliged to draw your attention and that of Parliament to the difficulties
which this arbitrary increase in residence qualification will cause.”
Do not increase the cost of operation, nor the practicability of the operation, nor
the amount of paper, ink and machines required to meet the purposes which were
being set out without the input of the Electoral Commission, he was told. That
advice was brushed aside as pointless.
Today, the Parliament is convened to undo several of last year’s errors. I make
reference to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Amendments, addressing Section 21(2)
and 21(2)(a). The Member from Rural West would not yield to the sensible advice
offered him, and so we have come here to make it possible for the Electoral
Commission to publish Registers that it should have published on June 30th 2011,
five months ago; and on October 31st, 2011, two weeks and two days past.
As was indicated last year, the inclusion of photographs in the Registers
would multiply the cost of producing a constituency’s register by as much as
ten times. The machines would have to be acquired that could speedily print
photos and biographic data simultaneously; and, the amount of paper required
would be enormous. In fact, the Member was advised that the portability and the
examination of the Registers would be near-impossible. The old, the physically
impaired, the mentally challenged, and almost everyone but the most agile among
us would not be able to easily find his/her name. Still, the Member from Rural
West persisted, offering what he deemed to be valid reasons for decisions that only
by dint of majority caused these sections to become law.
It is still un-necessary to have photos in the register since each elector casting a
vote requires a voter identification card. The photograph embedded in the card
is the same photo reproduced in the register. Since the elector cannot change a
photo in the card, why is there a need to print a photo on the register when the
elector presents himself to cast his ballot and three persons examine the card and
the person facing them? The entire rationale is based on lies, innuendo, unfound
claims, and a deliberate attempt to undermine confidence in the process. The cards
are tamper-free. The photo cannot be altered. The cards are required in order for
registered electors to participate in voting. Why the photo on the register?
Letter addressed to the Honorable Baldwin Spencer on June 21, 2010 from Sir
Gerald A. Watt
Amendment of Section 24 Register for Elections
“The second and even more serious issue is the amendment to include the
photograph of every elector to be included in the register for elections.”
“Should this section become law, it would create a most undesirable and dangerous
precedent where an electors’ photograph is splashed all over the state. Further,
this practice entails considerable security risks; people’s photographs ought to
be confidential. It is frightening to contemplate the photographs of police and
army and security personnel including those operating covertly and undercover
will be open to full scrutiny by every potential criminal, their faces and addresses
being readily ascertainable. While public and state official’s pictures are readily
available, ordinary citizen’s privacy in this regard ought to be protected.”
“In any event, what is the purpose of the amendment? From your presentation in
Parliament and some of your colleagues, it appears that the purpose is to be able
to use the register for elections as a campaign party tool to i.e. assist the political
parties in identifying voters.”
Be that as it may, I am thankful that the requirement of a photo, next to the name
of every elector, in every register, has been eliminated. Efficiencies have been
achieved by the inability of the Commission to do what the law commanded.
No register was published on June 30, and no register on October 31, because
the Commission could not do either, is proof sufficient that the lawmaker was
I come now, Madame Speaker, to the most egregious wrongs done to individuals
who are citizens of Antigua and Barbuda; who have served our country with
distinction; who have served the Commission outstandingly; and who have been
exemplars of fairness. I speak of the Supervisor of Elections and the displaced/
former Chairman of the Electoral Commission.
Lorna Simon has been an outstanding civil servant. I believe she was one of the
youngest persons to have been appointed as a Permanent Secretary. She was
entrusted with the task of Supervisor of Elections and has silently taken a reduction
in income for several years. While Permanent Secretaries received increases,
mumbo-jumbo reasons have been given why she cannot be the recipient of a
similar salary increase. There was no charge leveled against her even by the
victorious UPP in 2004, and up until March 2009 she was barely noticed. When
the UPP barely overcame the majority in the March 12, 2009, elections, and so
much went wrong, the attack dogs began looking for scapegoats. Lorna Simon
became the perfect foil. The failure to deliver resources and the delays by the
failure to take the Boundaries Commission Report to the Parliament, were never
mentioned as reasons causing the late printing of the registers which resulted in
the late start of elections. Just blame Lorna Simon, exonerate self, and treat her
as though she can be easily discarded. I crave your indulgence to refer to Lorna
- University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, Barbados:
Attained the Bachelor of Science Degree (BSc.) in Public
Sector Management with Second Class Honours
(Lower Division)
-University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica:
Attained the Certificate in Public Administration.
Professional Experience
-Supervisor of Elections
- Permanent Secretary, Office of the Governor -General
- Seconded as Secretary to McIntyre Commission of Inquiry
-Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Youth Empowerment,
Sports, Carnival and Community Development
- Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Environment
-Principal Assistant Secretary
-Senior Assistant Secretary
- Assistant Secretary
-Senior Executive Officer
- Executive Officer
-Participated as an International Observer during elections
for President and Vice-President in the Dominican Republic
- Participated as a CARICOM Observer during General
Elections in St. Kitts/Nevis
- Participated as an International Observer during Municipal
Elections in Nicaragua
-Participant in the Course – Inter-American Meeting on
Quality Management for Electoral Authorities in Monterrey
Mexico
You had a registration officer under the previous Act. Lorna Simon is the Chief
Registration Officer in the old act. But why not have an assistant Registration
officer to assist Lorna Simon? You are trying to undermine the existing Supervisor
of Elections, Miss Lorna Simon and put someone who is one of your cronies in
order to manipulate the system; someone who will break the law. To put a Chief
Registration Officer in at this time is total nonsense.
Because of Lorna Simon’s impartiality, professionalism and straightforwardness,
the UPP Government and political Directorate is doing everything in their power
to emasculate and marginalize, and undermine her functions and responsibilities as
Supervisor of Elections.
They are trying to remove preparation of the continuous process of registration
from Lorna Simon who has been doing it successfully since 2003 to a Chief
Registration Officer who will know nothing about the system.
The UPP has now arbitrarily reduced the retirement age of the Supervisor of
Elections to 65 years, so that she will be gone in less than three years.
The government has also stripped the office of Supervisor of Elections of every
duty that a Supervisor must carry out in the Commonwealth. The Supervisor of
Elections, under the principal Act was the Chief Registration Officer, the Chief
Elections Officer, the Chief Executive Officer. In Paragraph 8, Amendment of
Section 9, subsection (a) eliminates the Chief Executive Officer role. Sticking with
paragraph 8 subsection c, subsection (2), on page 8 of the Amendments, the roles
of Chief Registration Officer and Chief Elections Officer are also eliminated from
her duties. The Chief Administrative Officer role has also assumed the roles once
assigned the Chief Executive Officer, eliminating the major functions which the
Supervisor of Elections once carried out dutifully.
Over the years, the commission going back to the late McClean Matthias, has
never had any problem with the performance of Lorna Simon as CEO of ABEC.
So you need to tell this house and this country why are you putting a Chief
Administration Officer to deal with 17 staff members in the office when Lorna
Simon, the Supervisor of Election has been doing this since 2003, and doing it very
well! No complaints from the commission and neither you, nor your party.
Now you are proposing in this act, to put one of you Party Hacks, to do the job that
the Supervisor of Elections must do. You can not have anyone else doing the job
of the preparation of continuing registration other than the Supervisor of Elections.
Both things have to go together. The Chief Registration Officer can not and should
not take over the control of the register. This is why the old act made her the Chief
Registration Officer --- you can not split the functions. The preparation of the
register is an integral part of the electoral process and the Supervisor of Elections
The Registers issued in June and December each year are very important since
either of these registers will form the basis of a by-election or a general election.
It is important that the constitutionally designated officer responsible for elections
in Antigua and Barbuda is responsible under any statue for all areas of electoral
process. She should be the Chief Registration Officer, the Chief Elections Officer
and the Chief Administrative Officer for the Commission since all three areas of
the process impact on the democratic process of elections in Antigua and Barbuda,
which constitutionally and not statutorily is in the hands of the Supervisor of
Elections and not the Election Commission.
List to be issued
The laws provide that the Chief Elections Officer and or Registration Officer
provide several lists in each statutory period for each Constituency. Chief among
these lists are a Preliminary Register at the end of April and October each year and
an official Register of Electors on the 30th day of June and 31st day of December.
Elections
When a Writ for elections is issued in Antigua and Barbuda by Her Excellency
the Governor General that Writ goes to the Supervisor of Elections and not to
the Electoral Commission. The Supervisor of Elections as mandated by the
Constitution is the Officer who returns the Writ to the Governor General (Head of
state) after an elections or a by election. This means that he or she is recognized as
the constitutional authority on all elections matters in Antigua and Barbuda.
Go back again to section 9 a subsection (1) this is a total insult to all
Parliamentarians and the country as a whole. Every 5 year old school child can
spot what’s going on here. It’s the P.M through his chairman who will choose and
hand pick the Chief Registration Officer.
Section 9A Subsection 1, Page 9. This is for Baldwin Spencer to interfere. If it’s
the commission to appoint a chief Registration Officer, why the commission must
take into consideration the recommendation of the Chairman of the commission?
What is the position if the chairman recommendations are different from
the remaining Commissioners?
interference from the Prime Minister to the Chairman of the Commission?
Isn’t this inserted here as to allow political
They are violating the spirit of Section 67 of our constitution.
If you look at all the laws looking back to 1975 when we appointed our first
supervisor, then in 2001, we passed the Representation of the People Act which
laid out all her duties and functions, you now are taking away all her duties
and functions which the Constitution really and truly expects her to deal with
all electoral matters. In the 2001 Act it is very clear that all her duties and
responsibilities are laid out. But what you are doing is taking away the functions
and giving them to a new Chief Registration officer in order to manipulate the
The Government cannot afford to grant the Supervisor a raise which she
deserves, but the Commission will now hire four additional Officers to carry
out the work which the Supervisor of Elections undertook seamlessly for
seven years. If that is fair, then I do not know what injustice looks like. It is
not fair, it is not just, it is not worthy for any long-serving civil servant to be
treated this way by their Parliament. Please do not do it.
Sir Gerald Watt, having been kicked down, and having had Senior Police
Officers stationed at the Electoral Commission to prevent him from entering
the premises, has now been dealt another severe blow. He is commanded by
the draft legislation to “cease to hold office”. Further, he will have passed
the new mandatory retirement age (Section 3(8) on page 7), and so will have
his seven-year tenured appointment undone prematurely. A Three-Member
Tribunal found no fault in him after three weeks of hearings last year. The
law compelled no Commissioner shall be removed except for cause. As he
awaits the judgment of the Court on his unlawful demotion, the Parliament
is being used to remove him from even the lowly post to which he was
arbitrarily assigned. That, Dear Speaker, is evidence of lawmakers acting
There were 18 charges against Nathaniel Paddy James and Gerald Watt. Before,
the Tribunal even started, the Counsel to the Tribunal, Mr. Datadin reduced the 18
charges to 4, with respect to Watt and 5 with respect to Paddy James. All 4 charges
against Watt and all 5 against Paddy were wiped out without them even having to
say a word. The charges were so trumped up and mischievous and obviously
false and baseless that they were thrown out without they having to even refer to
their witness statements or to even take the stand; there clearly being no case to
Now the tribunal that you Mr. P.M put together to inquire, heaps praise on
both Gerald Watt and Paddy James and totally vindicates them. Then both, the
P.M and the Governor General commits and illegal act by rescinding Gerry
Watts’ appointment as chairman in a manner unknown to law and then leaves
him as a sole commissioner. And now the UPP party hacks like Ivor Ford, Jean
Small Malika Parkers’ father, Chaku Symister; they all have been talking about
disbanding the entire commission which is what we are doing here today in
Madame Speaker, What we are doing here overall is taking political control
by the Ruling Party of the Electoral commission, which it feels it can not
do with the presence of the present commissioners. Therefore, they wish to
stack the commission in such a manner as to allow the P.M to exert total
and complete control on the entire electoral process, which should be really
an independent, impartial body, and independent of any political control of
Let me warn, you can make retroactive legislation but you can not pass legislation
that will be retroactive if it causes an abridgement of rights enjoyed by a person
under a previous Act of Parliament. You can not abridge an existing right by
subsequent legislation.
If you are going to amend the Representation of the People Act, no government
would do this without dialogue and proper consultation with the commission. In St.
Lucia, Section 52 of the constitution of St. Lucia calls for meaningful consultation
with the commission.
In England, there can be no amendments to the law unless it comes from the
Supervisor of Elections and the Commission to the Home Secretary. They have a
serious input; you just don’t pass laws willy nilly.
Madame Speaker, let me give a little Background here. In 2007, the then Electoral
Commission met at the Multipurpose Centre and invited the general public, and
the Political Parties. It was very well attended. The then chairman, Sir Gerald
Watt, Q.C said there are several constituencies in which residential expansion
had affected the existing constituencies. For Example: People coming to register;
where do you live? I live in Bolans. When in fact they live in West Palm Beach;
we have no street names in the constituencies. West Palm Beach is north of the
Dividing Line, which is north of the Northern Boundary of the constituency which
is an imaginary line. The upshot of this, is that people who are voting in St. Mary’s
South should be really voting in Rural South.
St. Peters, we had a Boundary problem with All Saints West. There were about 12
constituencies, Rural West and Rural South imaginary line again. People who were
voting in Rural South should have been voting in Rural West. The other bad one
(all the constituencies where we had the lateness in opening) Rural North and St.
Georges. For Example: There were persons voting in St. Georges who were living
across the imaginary boundary and should of really been voting in Rural North. I
was there, when Sir. Gerald Watt raised this in January 2007. I believe you were
there Mr. P.M and if you were not both parties were written to about this.
I have also heard the former chairman Sir Gerald Watt saying constantly on radio
that the boundaries commission should be appointed immediately because he knew
it would be a lengthy exercise. But, it was not until July 2007 six (6) months later
that the PM appointed the Boundaries Commission and appointed Senator
Lionel Gomes as chairman. He then fell sick and had to travel overseas. It was not
until September 2007 that the P.M replaced Gomes with Clarence Crump. In
the meantime, the Electoral Commission had gone with Ren Oneal in the field and
then with the Boundaries Commission. The Boundaries Commission reported back
to Baldwin Spencer in July 2008. Gerald Watt filed court papers which are public
and I read his witness statement.
5 weeks after the General Elections in 2009, Sir Gerald Watt wrote on behalf of the
Commission a 40 page report with 30 exhibits explaining all the problems that
they had encountered. Mr. P.M did you read this report and its contents? Have you
read what was given to you?
The Boundaries Commission report never reached Parliament. It reached the
speaker immediately on 30th July, 2008, but the P.M never called Parliament until
November 2008 to deal with this. The P.M sat down on the important report for 3-
4 months and the chairman of the electoral commission, Sir Gerald Watt did not
receive a copy of this important report. Sir Gerald had to get a copy from Clarence
Crump the week before Christmas 2008. So the Electoral Commission was now
scrambling around at the 11th hour to try and put things in place for an election
being called in March 2009. You see the short period. Let’s look at what the
Tribunal had to say about this:
Paragraph 43, page 49
“The Commission and in particular its Chairman Sir Gerald, acted properly
and responsibly and within the provisions of the Acts, in rejecting the repeated
invitations of the witness Symister to itself “revisit” the published register for
elections and itself make corrections. The Commission displayed commendable
balance and maturity, by the immense work it undertook in pursing its statutory
duty between December 2008 and Election Day 2009, and refusing to be deterred
by what were in fact unfounded allegations and suspicions.”
Paragraph 52, page 54
“Miss. Blaize emphasized that the major problem was financing, and the
consequent inability of the Commission to meet the salary demands expected from
suitable qualified persons.”
Paragraph 71 and 72, page 67
“We are satisfied on the evidence that serious and wide ranging attempts were
made to acquire such a person for the Data Processing Division: such attempts
being stymied by the lack of funds to employ a suitable person.”
“We also accept the evidence of Miss. Blaize and Mr. Merchant as to the
adequate training of staff undertaken by the Commission. We are satisfied that the
Commission did all in its powers, given the financial constraints to satisfy its duty
and responsibility to have adequate training programmes and a continuous voter
education programme.”
“In the result we come to the conclusion that in this regard the Commission, and
in particular Sir. Gerald Watt, and Mr. Nathaniel “Paddy” James cannot be faulted.
Consequently, we cannot on this evidence find that any of these persons have
shown an inability to exercise the functions of his office as required by section 4
(1) of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2001.
Paragraph 40, page 48
“We find that here was no evidence of any registration by immigration receipts.
Neither did the Commission authorize or acquiesce in such practice. We accept the
evidence and explanation of Miss. Simon that her issuance of the notice dated 22nd
October, 2008, Exhibit 5, was done “out of an abundance of caution” and was not
an admission or “confession” that the practice existed, or that “persons had been
illegally registered.”
Prior to this, the P.M actually tried to force Sir Gerald Watt to deliver cards up
until Election Day. Sir Gerald wrote to the P.M warning him that they did not want
to deliver cards no later than 48 hours before the election. Can you imagine the
Electoral Office had to replace lost and stolen cards of nearly 1000 cards. Although
the Law says you can deliver cards until Election Day, but practically this is
impossible and would only lead to chaos and confusion on Election Day.
The Jamaican Observer mission included in their report that this was not desirable
and the Commonwealth, Caricom and OAS delegations said this was undesirable.
How can you have over 300 persons the day before the elections coming for new
What is the real purpose of all of these amendments and these two (2) additional
commissioners? What is it you just love to spend money?
Instead, of this why don’t we follow the Jamaican model, where the main political
parties appoint one person to sit on the commission, Ex-officio without a vote or
salary. In that way, it clothes the commission with knowledge of how the political
parties think about certain electoral issues and conversely, the commission through
them can get through to the electorate an understanding of the electoral issues
that are being grappled with. There is a nexus and cohesion between the Electoral
Commission and the political parties.
How do theses persons from the Christian Council, Evangelical Council, Trade
Union and Chamber of Commerce assist a commission in carrying out its
mandate? If you want two (2) other persons on there, they should be appointed by
the political parties to adumbrate the political views at the highest level. The two
main political parties in Parliament. These two (2) persons can sit without salary,
ex-officio. This is really what should be done. For anyone like a Queens Counsel,
Mr. A.G to put up his name on an act like this can only show that this is only a
Conclusion
Madame Speaker, the actions of this administration do violence to fairness
and justice. The amendments are intended to create, as far as is possible,
victory for the United Progressive Party in March 2014 or anytime before
that due date. The intention is far from good, nor is the heart pure. The intent
is to win by cheating, by placing the balance in the Commission squarely on
the side that benefits the incumbent government. Ten on that side and seven
on this side, so the ayes will always have it. But the people of Antigua and
Barbuda, witnessing this gross injustice will reject those who dare to make a
mockery of their democracy. Time will tell.
Mr. P.M, my Dear Friend, you may succeed in passing this legislation today
as insane at it is. You have no idea as to the confusion that will occur in the
revamped commission that you are setting up.
MARK MY WORDS TODAY! That you will have widespread confusion and
disruption not only in-house at the ABEC but also in the field.
Rest assured Mr. P.M, that the voters of this country other than your party
base will punish you at the next general election.
Political history has shown that whenever a political party seeks to undermine
the Electoral process to assist them to retain power, by using political and
Electoral chicanery they have invariably been punished by the Electorate.
Comments
Post a Comment