One of APNU’s newer voices (formally), Attorney-at-Law Dexter Todd, has attempted to argue that the APNU+AFC coalition did not attempt to rig the 2020 national elections. This claim stands in stark contrast to the well-documented evidence to the contrary. Todd further contends that the observed “irregularities” point instead to the PPP/C as the party responsible for electoral manipulation.
To support his argument, Todd cites the fact that eighty-eight (88) individuals were permitted to vote by way of an Oath of Identity. In a Facebook video, he emphasizes this number as if it carries significant weight in relation to the total number of valid votes cast. But does it?
Let us examine both the legal basis and statistical relevance of Todd’s claim to determine whether voting via an Oath of Identity is lawful, and whether the cited figure has any material impact on the 2020 election outcome.
𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘀
Guyana’s General and Regional Elections are governed by the Representation of the People Act (Cap. 1:03), 1964 (“ROPA”). Section 75 of the Act provides that:
“The presiding officer shall, in the event of his needing to be satisfied of the identity of any elector whose name is on the official list of electors, accept in lieu of the prescribed identity paper such other identification as is authorized by the Commission and entailing the same stringency for its generation as to leave no doubt as to its authenticity as in the case of the identity paper and permit an elector to vote in the same manner as if his identity paper had been produced.”
This provision ensures that a voter is not disenfranchised solely due to the absence of their identification card on election day. The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has codified procedures for such cases in its polling manual, which outlines the verification process and confirms that each instance is handled on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, the use of an Oath of Identity is a lawful and regulated practice, designed to uphold the constitutional right to vote while maintaining electoral integrity.
𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲
Assuming Todd’s figure of 88 voters is accurate, these individuals represent 0.019% of the total 460,352 valid votes cast in the 2020 elections. Even if one were to assume—unevidently—that all 88 votes went to the PPP/C, they would account for just 0.04% of the party’s total 233,336 votes.
This renders the figure statistically insignificant in terms of influencing the overall outcome of the election. To suggest that such a minuscule fraction of votes could materially alter the result is not only misleading but mathematically unsound.
𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
Todd’s argument fails both legally and statistically. The use of an Oath of Identity is explicitly provided for under Guyana’s election law and is subject to stringent procedural safeguards. Moreover, the number of voters who utilized this provision in 2020 is far too small to have had any meaningful impact on the election’s outcome.