As early as December 19, 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the December 2009 general elections, the issue of Voter ID Cards and cleaning up of the electors list were listed as two important campaign issues for the 2014/2015 general elections.
Followers of political developments in Dominica will recall that a mere one day after the last general elections, long before a concessionary speech accepting the results of the just concluded (December 18th 2009) elections the elections war cry was for a dedicated voters ID card and “cleansing” as it were, of the electoral list. On that fateful Saturday installment of the “Between You and Me” Radio program, with some still reeling from the realization that it was 18 to 3, the dye was cast, the battle lines were drawn. There will be no elections until a reregistration of voters program has been undertaken and voter ID cards issued.
Much has happened since. Interestingly, we have had two bi-elections without Voter ID cards and used the same list of electors. Absolutely no complaint. It is now June 2014 and judging from recent pronouncements, the issue will not go away any time, at least for some, even in the bright daylight of a recent Appeals Court judgment – the Highest Court in our land.
Our society is governed by the principles of law and order. Like every other disciplined country, we have establish certain institutions at great expense to the tax payer to mitigate or arbitrate for us when disputes arise. Our disagreements are indeed wide ranging and diverse. But the courts as we have come to know stand in judgment over our affairs. Admittedly, not all decisions of the court will find favor with everybody all the time. Its decisions are not always popular or what we expect it to be at any one point in time. But the healthy functioning of the court system in our society was designed to maintain law and order and to seek to bring justice to each of us. In the absence of that important social balance, chaos and anarchy would reign supreme. Our society would disintegrate into one where the law of the jungle would prevail – survival of the fittest.
In an election petition matter in Nevis, the OECS Supreme Court ruled and established the principles enshrined in law that must be adhered to when it comes to cleaning up, as it were – the electors list. Some may not like it, but that is the law. It is arguable that there is a need to review the law and or constitution. But let us accept that the present case law which was established after the Nevis elections petition, unless changed, is what that must drive and inform our very action when it comes to “cleansing the electors list”. What is so difficult about that? Why do certain practicing attorneys sing from a different hymn sheet on this matter when they know that the outcome of that case in Nevis has established the law?
I do not profess to have any training in matters of the law, except to understand basic principles. Interpreting the law is not my business. Our system has created the court to interpret the law. And so, I humble to those who have sweated and by dint of hard and diligent work have succeeded in understanding how our society ought to function under the law. How we as citizens ought to comport ourselves as a disciplined people.
To cite the present case law we refer to the election petition matter in Nevis. Case No HCVAP 2012/003 between Joseph Parry and Mark Brantley; Case No HCVAP 2012/004 between Leroy Benjamin, Bernadette Sylvester and Mark Brantley and Case No HCVAP 2012/005 Between Hensley Daniel and Mark Brantley.
I have read, painstakingly the judgments in this matter, I am not a jurist. All I possess is a modicum of understanding of the written language and I am sure I have some competence in this regard. The references to existing case law in other jurisdictions/citations and arguments are compelling. My understanding is that once you have been legally registered to vote your name will remain on the voters list irrespective. It is a sacrosanct and blessed privilege that many have fought and indeed lost their life to achieve. It ought not to be subjected to the whims and fancies of anyone or power much more a political party.
That court decision also provides the basis and procedures for removing the names of the any duly registered voter. The name of a duly registered voter can be removed from the list only upon death of the voter. Once the proper proof is given – an authentic death certificate, the name is removed promptly – no question asked.
The other scenario where the name of a voter may be removed is not as simple as when a voter dies. Consider the case of Mr. Franko Charles. He has been a registered voter since 1979 and has exercised his franchise to vote at every general elections since 1980. In time Mr. Charles would leave Dominica for North America in search of the proverbial “greener pastures”. Up to the time of the great financial meltdown, he was doing well and visited Dominica regularly. In January 2009 he visited for carnival and upon his return received his “pink slip” due to the hard economic times. For five years now there is doubt as to whether he has ever returned, not even for his dear Grand Mother’s funeral or Kweyole Festival or carnival? Rumor has it that he was sighted in Colihaut at the ordination of Fr. Brakes. Who is keeping tabs on his travels to and from Dominica? Yes, there is the ED Card. But who is checking the ED cards for this specific information? Who has the evidence to prove that he has been away for five consecutive years and have never, ever returned? That is where the existing law as we understand it in layman’s language and the recent Appeals Court ruling has to divorce, one taking precedence over the other.
So since the judgment in 2013, those who clamor for cleansing the voters list seemingly has reverted to appealing to the conscience of individual electors – Frank Charles. If you know you have been away for five consecutive years without coming back to Dominica at any time, then don’ come and vote.
But in the case of Franko Charles there is a vigorous campaign to remove him from the electoral list because unlike “is it the same Ronald Charles”, heaven knows he will never, ever vote in a particular way and because he is coming to vote in a constituency where his one vote matters, he has to be stopped. Again, here is my understanding of what the last judgment from the Court of Appeal had to say.
Those who would like the name Franko Charles to be removed from the electoral list must first make a complaint to the electoral office. In that complaint they must state their grounds for objecting and be prepared to provide evidence in support of their objection. The electoral office must then make contact with Franko Charles, advising him of the nature of the complaint, who is making the complaint and finally to afford him the opportunity to state his case why he should not be removed from the list. A hearing is summoned and the parties are given the opportunity to state their case. Due process they call it. Not at the whims and fancy or the smooth talk of any person or authority.
I somehow get the distinct impression that those who are today crying out for “cleansing” the voters list are unconcerned about due process. They think that the name Franko Charles should be removed from the electoral, simply because they say so, not in writing or supported by evidence but because they say so and cry out loudly about Franko Charles being an illegal voter. They believe the name Franko Charles ought to be removed forthwith. But “nothing t’al go so man”. Franko Charles according to the case law has to be told why anybody, group or authority would want his name removed.
I am reminded about an attempt that was made a few short years ago to “cleanse the voters list” in La Plaine. That turned out to be a scandalous affair. A gentleman whose name was included among those to be removed as being dead, was alive and well walking the streets of La Plaine. Can you imagine that those who prepared the list are from La Plaine and living in La Plaine? What was the explanation? It was an unfortunate typographical error of sorts. But didn’t somebody checked the list for accuracy before submitting it to the Electoral Office?
I am sure the issue of “cleansing up” the voters list will remain a hotly debated matter in the upcoming election. Whatever is the basis of our action to clean or not to clean the list has to be informed by the Court of Appeal Judgment in the Nevis Election Petition matter. I urge all Dominicans to get familiar with the judgment. Every indication is that the campaign to remove certain electors from selected constituencies will continue. It may reach the streets. “Boots on the ground” may be attempted, voters will be intimidated as the campaign has already indicate. What prevails in the end is the law, the law and again the law. We can argue for a change of the law, even if to suit our present purpose. But the law has to be upheld every time.
Opinions expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Dominica News Online or its advertisers.
I quote ” Voting is the primary means of participation in a representative democracy in competitive elections which are fair substantively and procedural y, Eligible and responsible voters take their time to read parties programes,agendas,study ideas,integrity,capabilities,personal records,future plans and their stance on public issues.”
Law of nature you reap what you sow,those who vote for money,out of anger,ignorance etc will reap what they voted for.lets grow up and help build or democracy.
For all their sanctimonious crying on Q95, I hope this article serves as a template on “how to” make a presentation or suggestion on the cleansing of the voters list. This writer has at least made his argument, whether you agreed with him or not. For example, he suggested “to be removed from the electoral list must first make a complaint to the electoral office. In that complaint they must state their grounds for objecting and be prepared to provide evidence in support of their objection. The electoral office must then make contact with Franko Charles, advising him of the nature of the complaint, who is making the complaint, and finally to afford him the opportunity to state his case why he should not be removed from the list. A hearing is summoned and the parties are given the opportunity to state their case. Due process they call it. Not at the whims and fancy or the smooth talk of any person or authority.” So, again I say to Blessings and all the other Q95 radio personalities, take a hint from this writer and make a presentation on how you propose the Electoral Commission can clean up the voters list. Repeating, regurgitating ,hypothetical scenarios from the past or future and not making your case on “How to” cleanse the list is futile and shows your lack of vision, leadership, and creative thinking. Please tell us how you will/can sanitize that list. If you can’t, then stop complaining.
The electoral list is published every quarter for scrutiny of the general public. In my 20 0r so years as a registering officer, never have I received any objection to any body’s name being on the list. The UWP claim that certain Registering Officers are not doing their work properly. They are yet to provide the names and address of any one. yet they will take their political dribble to the public. The Electoral Commission which also comprise of individuals who are sympathetic to the UWP has thrown a challenge to them. Provide the evidence or short up.
Who is this Francis Charles? Is he a non partisan level headed individual one can depoend upon to be fair and balanced? I am just asking.
Is Francis Charles the issue. Are you not satisfied that he has made a point for all to think and rethink their position on how to cleanse the electors list? Well, Francis Charles is already known to the UWP – because unlike “is it the same Ronald Charles”, heaven knows he will never, ever vote in a particular way ,,,,,,,. He has never hidden his dislike of blue party politics. Remember they had a stint in government – right? And went after those they thought did not support them, right? If that assists you in determining who he is rather than absorb the message … so be it.
In this case yes, Francis Charles’ position makes it impossible for him to be seen as being impartial. He can not be seen but support his paymaster, Roosevelt Skerrit. Rightly or wrongly, because of his extreme closeness to the ruling power this public uttering can only be perceived in one particular hue.
The writer is making mockery of the situation. So what Antigua did in cleaning up their electoral list is illegal them? They cleaned it up didn’t they? Do you mean the precedence set in the Nevis case does not apply in all the Caribbean nations that have cleaned electoral list in preparation for recently held elections, except in Dominica?
What a joke of an article!
Did they clean it up or did they eliminate the names of thousands of voters. What is the correct version of what took place in Antigua? Tell me! Give one reason why the hundreds of Dominicans in the Diaspora, who have visited here regularly, invested heavily in the society, remain steadfastly in touch with their country. Give one reason why these people should be denied their God-given rights to vote? I suspect you will say if they qualify and legal then they can vote. But guess! What. Any reregistration of voters will eliminate them because they do not have the residency requirement. Isn’t that what you want – to find a legal way to remove them form the list? Be honest with your conscience.
If vote ID were issued in the period between elections then these bonafied diasporians who invest and come home regularly will have their ID card for every elections. And you well know that the problem is really those who do not care, have left 20, 10 years ago who get a free ride who come down in their multitude the day before and of elections vote and go right out in the next day or so. That is the problem that cleaning of the electoral list addresses!. Play dumb still as the old people say time longer than rope. Tanto Tanto.
Try to understand the article without any bias political support.
Why? the article was not written without political support bias as hard as he tried to make it seem he is nonaligned. Don’t be fooled.
Would that be the same Francis Charles, who lists himself on Facebook as the Press Attache for Roosevelt Skerrit and close to him as well as Ambrose George?
If so, would it be fair to assume that his views are coloured by that close association?
Francis don’t worry. You have earned your christmas bonus already.
No, it is not the Press Attache’. It is the same “Ronald Charles
And you are attacking the messanger and not the message. Come on. Read and understand.
It would be/is very irresponsible of the electoral office/electoral commission to be putting out a voters list every five years without ensuring that the list is accurate and free from any irregularities.
Shouldn’t the statistical division and the Registry be playing a significant roll in the compiling of the voters list, at least one year to six months before a general election ?
It is not good enough to be only adding names of newly registered voters to the list and not removing the names of those who are no longer eligible to vote. Antigua took three months to cleanse their entire electoral list. Can’t we attempt to do the same?
With modern computer power it is perfectly feasible to have a voters’ list that is constantly updated in real time. We have the measuring points in place such as. register of births, & deaths and departure- & arrival data from immigration. Believe me, it is not that difficult. What may be lacking is the will to implement it.
the law the law the law…is all you care about now?…well….”NO LAW…including the constitution”…….you know the rest.
..and don’t forget to “go to hell” while we’re at it.. 
“Our society is governed by the principles of law and order”
Get lost…you clown..
“No law, No constitution’ can prevent you from having a different point of view and even sharing your opinion as long as you remain within the confines of the law. “No law, no constitution” can prevent you from sharing your views. What say you?
@ “Lawyer” since you’ve been already sent to hell, “It is none of your damm business”…
Now wheel and come again…
thats why the saying ‘commonsense means more than education.” definitely holds water. with all the utilization of english and bush beating the article simply wants to reinforce the idea that we do not need to clean our voters list. that is just totally idiotic in my view. i would think that the onus should not even be on political parties to maintain an ACCURATE list and accuracy demands updating the list periodically to reflect what the constitution envisaged. the commission should not wait for complaints to be made by either party but should work objectively towards the goal of total transparency and fairness in the electoral process. the only value of the article in my estimation would be for purely philosophical considerations but in the real world struggle for democracy(for which people have died as stated in the article) it has no relevance and is in fact at odds with the principles that guide us such as integrity. now many people will be thankful for this article since it leans upon the premise of ‘the law’ and we should all respect ‘the law’ and in a sense that is true if we are to maintain a viable society however it can be stated that the law was used to justify slavery, the inquisition and other not so pleasant activities in human history. if our forefathers had simply sat down and said ‘the law’ i guarantee much wouldnt have changed. so in matters of principle and righteousness we change the law the law doesnt change us and if you are not for democracy then you are against it sir.
U do not just get up one morning and decide to clean up the voters list. there has to be a justifiable cause. So far the arguments that have been advanced fro cleansing the voters list has to be treated within the law. The UWP must not just speak to public opinion, which is not going anywhere, they must provide the evidence, illegal voters, bloated voters list – not just saying our population is 50,000 and you have a 60,000 voters list when we all know that Dominica has a large number of CITIZENS, REGISTERED VOTERS, living in the diaspora who have maintained their relationship with their homeland. Provide the evidence of malfeasance, criminal wrongdoing etc. If we have to run our society on the whims and fancies of anyone person, then we are all doomed. Our society demands that when you lay such a serious charge against anyone, you must present the evidence – the evidence, the evidence.
i totally concur that you do not just wake up one morning and decide to clean the list common sense dictates that the list should probably be refreshed prior to elections REGARDLESS of political parties complaints or non-complaints on the matter. safeguarding free and fair elections should have priority since it is the hallmark of our democracy. you allude to the opposition providing evidence of illegal voters etc well i say that the onus is not on the opposition but on the electoral commission to ensure that the list is indeed accurate and reflects the requirements enshrined in our constitution. also we all know that the finance and resources needed to investigate and regulate the voters list may not be available to the opposition. the government on the other hand can ensure that this happens by simply enabling the commission to carry out its mandate by providing the funding and environment in which the task can be accomplished. think of it if someone stole your property and you went to the police to lodge a complaint, would it make sense if they told you go and get evidence of who stole your stuff and left the investigation up to you? the electoral commission then is like an oversight committee to ensure that the process is fair and should therefore act like one. we must recognize that ensuring a fair process is in the interest of ALL dominicans for according to an old time saying ‘wha sweet u today may sick u tommorow’
While Mr. Charles might be right with regards to the law, I think it is unfair to have someone registered as a voter for over thirty years and has not voted in the last six elections.
In the U.S. where I lived for some years and registered as a voter, my name was removed from the voters’ list after not voting in the last two elections. If am to go back to the U.S I must re-register if I want to vote.
Let us start the ball rolling by registering and issuing everyone on the voters’ list with an I.D card. If that person does not vote in two consecutive elections, there name is automatically removed from the voters’ list. That would be the best way to sanitize the list.
Mr. Charles, what comes around goes around. Is it really right to have a population of 70,000 and a voters’ list with 69,000?
And for all those U.S citizens coming back to vote in Dominica, my advice to you is to think before you vote because U.S Electoral Laws say to be qualified to vote in the U.S you must not be registered elsewhere-in any other State of Territory of the United States or in any foreign country or other election district other than the one in which you meet the residency requirement.
In other words it is an offence to vote in Dominica if you vote in United States or Territory of the United States.
Completely false!
U keep ignoringthe large numbers of Dominicans who live outside the country but who have never ever relinquished their responsibilities to the state. The built houses, invested in our financial institutions, visit regularly not only to Sewo at Carnival, Christmas or Creole Festival but indeed to maintain their links to their country, send remittances back home, follow local developments etc. etc. They are duly registered voters here and according to the law they are entitled to remain on the voters list. Once their name appears on the voters list and they wish to vote, they cannot be prevented from voting.
Those who are calling for cleaning up the list want to simply remove the names of these people simply because they live in the diaspora. By asking for a re-registration drive, they are simply saying that only those people who live here should be allowed to vote as the people in the diaspora will not meet the residency requirement of to be re-registered. Some of us went to school you know and we completed High School and even went on to College and university. So we have some understanding – at least give us that. now go check your facts re the American voting outside of America.
The law is never to be a shackle when dealing with evolving social issues. Its either the law gets adjusted accordingly or the people take decisive action. There comes a time when jungle justice is the only acceptable justice.
You have a valid point. Segregation in the southern states of the U.S.A. was legal , apartheid in S.Africa was legal. The witholding of women’s right to vote was legal. Slavery was legal. Discrimination against religions other than islam is legal in countries like S.Arabia.
Just because something is enshrined in law does not always mean it is right.
Well go have a revolution/ Call for a repeat of May 29th 1979. WE go see who wins.
Excellent piece of writing, Francis, but the fact is that, from my reading of our laws, the Electoral list needs to be cleansed. In fact, that should be an ongoing process. The commission ought to have in place a system where they can update their records every time there needs to be a change. I may be wrong but it seems that you’re advocating for the status quo. I am inclined to offer a rebuttal to several things you make note of, but I will settle for one reference. If there is ANY proof needed that the electoral list needs to be cleansed, it can be found in this paragraph ==> “I am reminded about an attempt that was made a few short years ago to “cleanse the voters list” in La Plaine. That turned out to be a scandalous affair. A gentleman whose name was included among those to be removed as being dead, was alive and well walking the streets of La Plaine. Can you imagine that those who prepared the list are from La Plaine and living in La Plaine? What was the explanation? It was an unfortunate typographical error of sorts. But didn’t somebody checked the list for accuracy before submitting it to the Electoral Office?”
i think the point of the article is not that the electoral list should not be “cleansed “or that it does not need to be , but rather that it should be done in the manner prescribed by law.Not in the manner being bandied by Opposition parties:just remove everyone carte blache and replace them with others ” re-registration”,there-by generating a completely new list.
so Francis Charles, what about the commissions decision a few years ago to work towards voter ID which would in fact address cleansing of the the list and Tony astaphans letter to the prime minters to derail this attemp. what about the ministry of finance not providing the funds for this effort?
You insisted you do not profess to have any training in matters of the law, except to understand basic principles, you did an excellent job in exposing the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims that has been perpetrated on the Populace by Politicians who get the joy of dispensing their Blue Pill.
A must read for all! Let everything be done decently and in order.
Well said,hope Sanford is reading this.
@be wiser Yes guess he will. He sounds wiser and more level headed than you are. Additionally he has made it clear to all that he is not a slave of Skerrit. He tries his best to expose bobol and fraud. So he should indeed read it.
Francis, this is as informative as it can get – great article!
Its article like these that should provoke a debate among the constituencies of the political divide, Mr. Francis kudos for an informative piece penned by you, we can all agree to disagree and move on, great research, I like it, I really like it
Francis Charles I am not sure if you are correct in saying that certain constituencies are targeted for cleansing as I understand it the opposition is requesting a total/wholesome cleansing of the voters list like it was done in Antigua
Remember the call to cleanup the list was directed at certain constituencies. See how easy it was for the UWP to go into a bye-election in Salisbury and Marigot without asking for a cleansed list. Did they complain about the list in Roseau where they won by the slim margin of less than five votes? Conversely they singled out the Roseau South Constituency in their election petition. They lost the election by 900 or so votes. Their problem with the list is not where they win, but rather where they lost.
Point taken Francis Charles, what of if you have 400 complaints for person’s living overseas, how is the electoral office going to handle such situations, would it not require 400 long distance calls?, if many attempts to make contact with all these persons prove futile what next??
Then by law they cant be removed cause they have to answer their case, you people think people don’t know their rights you all acting like people that live away don’t feel people pain home when we have our own problems up here we still have to find a way to help pay electrical and what ever else down there. Then we are being told we come down and vote and put people on u all backs, we vote because we know it could be a lot more worse than it is now and trust me we know how it felt from 95 to 2000 that why we will never let that happen again.
Check the law. Good piece, very informative. I love it when facts are presented for us all to make good decisions.