About PPP
History of PPP
PPP Leaders
PPP's Position Paper on Inclusive Governance
Guyana History Notebook
President Speeches
13th Year of PPP Government
Formation of WPO
PPP 28th Congress
Contact us












Founder Leader of the PPP -
Dr. Cheddi Jagan
President of Guyana
H.E Bharrat Jagdeo
General Secretary of the PPP
Donald Ramotar





There was an increase in the population between 1997 and 2001, yet the voters’ list for the 2001 elections was smaller than the voters’ list for 1997. The reason was simple. The PNCR created a hoax. They argued that, according to the census figures, the voters’ list had more people than it ought to have had. They then concocted the bogus Earle Test. The fabricated results from this test led to a virtual new registration as a result of a new photography exercise for the 2001 list. This culminated in thousands of people being disenfranchised.

The PNCR seeks to now perpetrate the same hoax on the Guyanese electorate.
They raise the identical argument based on the same lie and they repeat it everyday. They say that the list has more people than it ought to have.
They demand a test, called this time around a “house to house verification.”
The objective is once again to remove names from the voters’ list so that supporters of the PPP will be disenfranchised. The PNCR’s objection to 40,000 names in 2001 in addition to hundreds of existing persons, including the brother of the then Chairman, Joe Singh, is an apt reminder and evidence of the PNCR’s nefarious plot.

The PNCR has tried every political trick in the book to disparage the 2001 list. They first carried out a major campaign first claiming that the database was corrupted. Fortunately the Chairman of the Elections Commission for the 2001 elections had secured a copy of the database. To satisfy the PNCR a foreign expert had to be recruited to test the database.
They test proved that the database was intact, contrary to the wild and unfounded allegations of the PNCR.

Here is one of the findings : “…the Database Opening Exercise was conducted to satisfy stakeholders of the integrity of the GECOM Master Registration Database. The methodology, developed by IFES Consultant, Mr. Yard, used to validate the database involves the use of a Cyclic Redundancy Checksum (CRC) generation technique. The CRC generation program (CGP) will generate checksums which when compared can establish whether two sets of data are equal. In this case, the GECOM Database is being compared with a duplicate copy that was in the possession of the UNDP after the completion of the IDEA Audit in 2001…”

They added “…for purposes of data validation, the CRC is nearly flawless.
The odds against two different rows of data generating the same CRC are 1 in 4,294,967,296. This gives a margin of error of .000000000232831.”

This is the first verification exercise.

The PNCR in yet another attempt to discredit the database imported an “expert” from Canada to support their false claims.

The Commission again sought the assistance of the international community to acquire experts to check on the PNCR”s claims, here was the conclusion “We have investigated all the evidence that the PNCR have provided us from the security logs. We have found no evidence to support any allegations that the security of the database was breached, or that the system security at GECOM was at risk.” This was done in the presence of the PNCR “expert.”

This is the second verification exercise.

Having failed in those campaigns the PNCR then claimed that the list had duplicate names all of whom will vote for the PPP in the elections. They persisted in this false claim even though the 2001 list had less than 100 proved duplicates. Unfortunately, GECOM succumbed to what had become PNCR threats and blackmail and agreed to an expensive fingerprint test which will prove that there are no significant number of duplicates.

This is the third verification exercise.

The approximately 70,000 persons who have registered or effected transactions during the period of continuous registration were subject to verification by house to house visits.

This is the fourth verification exercise.

The usual claims and objections period is now in place and has been increased by an extra 12 days. During this period political parties have the opportunity to make house to house or other checks to ensure that persons whose names ought not to be on the list are objected to. The more than 40,000 objections made by the PNCR in 2001, though wrongly, clearly demonstrates that the PNCR has the capacity to test the list and object to names if they feel that the names are wrongly included on the list. This is the function of all political parties in all democratic countries. The PNCR does not want to do any political work. It wants to be pampered by GECOM while sowing confusion and creating false perceptions.

The claims and objections period is the fifth verification exercise.

A myriad of false allegations have been made over the past few months for the purpose of stoking the fires of uncertainty over an electoral process which, with generous donor help, has developed an open scheme and structure for elections known to all. Among the deliberate false speculations were that the list would have more than 500,000 names which, it was alleged was impossible having regard to the census. This has proved to be a lie. So has the assertion that the list is too large having regard to the census.
This has also proved to be a lie.

All of these lies are being repeated from 2001. They are not new, merely repackaged.

In addition to all of the above verification measures the following exist on voting day to prevent persons whose names are not on the list from voting:

1. A voter’s name, identification number and other particulars must be on
the voter’s list.

2. The voter must produce an ID card or approved picture identification to
be allowed to vote.

3. The voter’s picture will be printed on the voters’ list as an additional
measure of identification.

4. The voter’s finger is stained with indelible ink after voting.

5. Each political party has a representative in the polling station.

6. The votes are counted at the place of poll in the presence of party
representatives who are given the opportunity of signing the statement of poll.

In addition to all these measures the PPP is prepared to discuss additional measures on polling day to further ensure that it will be impossible for any unauthorised person to vote.

The PPP has nothing to gain from irregular elections. The PNCR, on the other hand, is a political party which carries the burden of a discredited past, with no constructive policies to offer its supporters. It has noticed that the PPP/C is attracting every greater support due to the government’s creativity, ingenuity and capacity in solving the problems of all Guyanese in fair, balanced and even handed manner.

It is therefore afraid to face the polls.

May 27, 2006

Web Site Designed and Maintained by Adrian Ally | Last Updated:
Contact us at: pr@ppp-civic.org, ppp@guyana.net.gy

People's Progressive Party 2003 - 2005