ALARMING   AND   FRIGHTENING
By Special Correspondent

Sunday’s radio programme, (Press conference with the Supervisor of Elections, Ms. Nadia McIntyre) was most informative and interesting. A statement,  however, made by the goodly lady, with apparent conviction, was quite alarming.

There is nothing wrong, she opined, “in bending the law, sometimes, without breaking it”. For a public officer of her status, occupying perhaps the most important office in a democratic system of Government, to believe, far less to concede, and to some extent advocate, even publicly, that it is acceptable to bend the law at any time, is not only preposterous, it is downright frightening.

What is there to prevent her from bending the law for one side or the other in the upcoming elections? How sad it has become that we can no longer expect those in authority to play strictly by the rules and not bend those rules to suit their purpose.
                 
Yet the Supervisor asks the public to place their confidence in the operations of  her office. It is hardly worth reminding her that public confidence is assured when the office functions according to law, displays a high degree of independence as guaranteed by the Constitution, and carries on its duties with impartiality. Few, indeed precious few, irrespective of their political stripes, believe that these qualities are observable in the  electoral office.

The Supervisor was somewhat disingenuous, when in answer to a question regarding personnel changes in her department she argued that transfers are routine. She failed to explain that the Public Service Commission (PSC) makes transfers on the basis of vacancies, promotions, requests from Permanent Secretaries, or  Heads of Departments for inefficiency, discipline or breach of regulations etc. There was no vacancy in the department. It would be a stretch to charge the officers with inefficiency or what have you. 

If she did not request the transfer, who did and for what reason? It must  have been a very serious matter indeed that occasioned the officers transfer , and both at the same time, and at this critical moment in the operation of the department.  Did she, in any case, make representation for delaying their transfer at this crucial moment?

According to Civil Service rules and regulations, a public officer is liable to be transferred at any time to a position of “equivalent status”,  except he/she is transferred on promotion or demoted as a disciplinary measure. The Head of Department must be aware of the whys and wherefores of the transfer.

The next question must be, who replaced the officers, are they new recruits, are they long standing officers who are now promoted or simply moved to positions of “equivalent status”, and if so, why the hurry?

This brings us to the PSC itself. The Commission would be viewed as insensitive were it to transfer the officers at this most critical moment in time, simply on the request of someone or to promote them or  their replacements, or that they were inefficient. Were they, and if they were, why did it take so many years to discover their inefficiencies?

The Supervisor also hinted, laid down the foundation as it were, for defense of her office should questions arise about the fairness of the conduct –  voters freedom to express their choice without fear, bribery, or intimidation, the voting itself, the security of the ballot boxes and the host of other measures that make for a free and fair election.

She declared, in answer to a question on that  subject, that while her office follows the laws and customs – albeit with seeing nothing wrong in bending the law from time to time- she could not speak for the  people (Returning officers, Poll Clerks etc) at the various polling stations who conduct the exercise.

It is hardly worth reminding her that she selects, trains and appoints all the officers, and  while she can delegate much of the work to be done in  relation to the election, she cannot delegate her responsibility for the conduct of a free and fair election. Any irregularity committed in the planning and  process must, and will be laid firmly at her doors.