This caption expands on the ending item of the most recent related article, Ridiculous Treatment of Discretion by Grenada Supervisor of Elections, which should be (re) perused for grasping the general perspectives.
The pertinent argument centers around the ‘contrary’ attitude and expressions of the present Supervisor of Elections (SoE), in terms of the ‘purpose and philosophy’ of the Parliamentary Elections Office (PEO).
Interestingly, Arthur Pierre vows, as reported in the 09 May 2025 E-edition of the Grenada Informer: “I will stay my course and do all in my power to ensure I preserve the integrity that the office demands.”
The Jury is still out in determining whose and what Course Pierre is highlighting.
There are inherent concerns about the declaration by Mr. Pierre, who was appointed to the constitutional position on 29 May 2024 under the 23 June 2022 administration of the ‘new’ National Democratic Congress party.
The concerns are valid, especially when considering the inherited ‘sorry and questionable’ state of the electoral system, and the tendency and revelations of Pierre to maintain or even to worsen the repulsive status quo in the management of the System.
Recall that the ‘incongruous’ practice and performance of Pierre thus far prompted the article, Supervisor Pierre Staying Course on Grenada Electoral System!, which explores for the ‘context and focus and aim’ of the Vow declared.
Discretionary Powers Abused
Pierre vows to “preserve the integrity that the (‘electoral’) office demands” by adopting an ‘uninformed and uncouth’ precedence of Unaccountability.
He accepts, boosts and confirms the Unaccountability Precedence comfortably by shielding within the discretionary powers that the Supervisor of Elections can exercise in (not) submitting any report concerning the function of the Office (subsection 35.5, Grenada Constitution).
He further claims that there is no knowledge as to who is designated as that Minister “responsible for matters relating to the election of members of the House of Representatives”.
A new SoE having ‘patriotism, scruples and genuine goodwill’ would seek clarifications with the Governor General, the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Finance about which Minister of Government should pertinent reports be forwarded to, for laying “before the House”.
An ‘astute and objective’ mind of such a person would raise enquiries, formulate suggestions and spur innovations on what occurs and obtains at the PEO, rather than to be ‘unmoved and unperturbed’ about any disreputable situation.
The principal thrust for communicating with those other Superior Officials is not merely for obtaining authoritative knowledge about the Minister responsible for electoral matters, but for stimulating and providing accountability about electoral matters.
The December 2020 article entitled by the pertinent concern, had sought to ascertain: Is Grenada’s Prime Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Elections Office? based on the ‘leeway and privilege’ which the Prime Minister has in accessing and visiting the Office, in equipping the Office and in realising policies on electoral matters including for reforms.
A constitutional discretion, held in high esteem, is not about having unfettered powers which could be exploited at will with impunity; neither should it be interpreted in isolation from pertinent constitutional obligations.
Discretion of statutory provisions must be evaluated and exercised within democratic principles, professional justifications, governance framework, and reasonable expectations of the public.
Civil Society Sidelined
The Parliamentary Elections Office has not fully recognised Civil Society as the main advocate and bastion of democracy. Moreover, it does not treat Civil Society as the real stakeholder of the electoral process but rather gives ‘priority and interest’ to political parties.
Despite this unfortunate reality, a Grouping of Civil Society Organisations has always endeavoured to collaborate with the Office and to contribute to the repute and advancement of the electoral process.
Private individuals as well as the Grouping have sought for the realisation of Transparency, Accountability and Integrity in the affairs of the Office, and for clarifications on disturbing issues.
It should not be missed that even the political leader of the ruling party and now Prime Minister, Dickon Mitchell, has placed a threat in a 10 May 2022 Open Letter to the Supervisor of Elections about rectifying the ‘deficiencies and discrepancies’ vexing the electoral process.
Presently the relationship and engagement of the PEO with Civil Society is less favourable than before, featuring an apparent measure of ‘disgust and disdain’ by the SoE towards the Grouping of Civil Society Organisations.
In fact, Arthur Pierre publicly chastised and condemned the Grouping, attributing it as ‘unfair, aggressive, confrontational and demanding’.
Pierre’s posture should also be evident when on assuming office, he immediately put an ‘unexplained drastic’ end to an ongoing series of public consultations set in motion by the ‘experience and acumen’ of his predecessor, Mr. Elvis Morain, for the procurement and installation of a Voter Registration System.
He then excluded a representative of Civil Society from a team which he set up to review the Terms of Reference and the Bids for the new System.
Circumventing Constitutional Requirements
The SoE/PEO has not been functioning in the ‘spirit and substance’ of the constitutional provisions regarding the electoral process.
It is a travesty of Electoral Justice for those provisions to be circumvented and/or to have them not effectively implemented due to excuses concocted.
As the pivotal authority for the management of the electoral process and thus accountable for ensuring ‘free and fair’ elections within democratic governance, the SoE/PEO is expected to take the lead on matters pertinent to the Process and to make compelling demands for the necessary resources and compliances.
Recent records do not show any ardent advocacy by a SoE for meaningful electoral reforms on behalf of the Grenadian people; but as most exemplified by the present holder, there is apparently much ‘compromising and conniving’ with the powers-that-be against the benefits of the general public.
Pierre chooses to rely on ‘baseless and ridiculous’ precedence involving the ‘prudent and balanced’ discretion towards the constitutional provision of “The Supervisor of Elections may, whenever he or she considers it necessary or expedient so to do, report to the House of Representatives on the exercise of his or her functions” (Section 35.5).
This being the case, even whilst there is ‘sound and meaningful’ precedence of amendments to the Elections Law and of Budget Allocations for the Elections Office presented and passed in Parliament. There has always been a de facto Minister for electoral matters.
Pierre chooses to rely on the unconstitutional precedence of upholding section 67 of the Representation of the People Act on the Mode of Taking Ballot in Special Cases.
By this being the case, incapacitated individuals, especially those who are visually challenged (blind) are denied the ‘right and occasion’ for Secret Voting.
That is; Section 32 (3) says: “In any election of members of the House of Representatives the votes shall be given by ballot in such manner as not to disclose how any particular person votes.”
Pierre chooses to rely on the ill-conceived precedence of not ensuring that “All constituencies shall contain as nearly equal numbers of inhabitants as appears to the Constituency Boundaries Commission to be reasonably practicable …. as it (‘Commission’) considers expedient to take account of …. the density of population, and in particular the need to ensure the adequate representation of sparsely-populated rural areas ….“.
This is the case, referring to sections 54, 55 and 56 (with Appendix 2) of the Constitution.
Critical Recommendations Snubbed
Grenada has had tremendous inputs to its electoral system by overseas democratic institutions, but without experiencing any significant advancement of the System.
Comprehensive reports of judicious analyses, undisputed findings and critical recommendations have been presented by Overseas Elections Observations Missions such as from the Organisation of American States (OAS).
The lack of taking the lead by the Supervisor of Elections for acting on those reports, including bringing them to the awareness of the Grenadian people, and with no interest by the Government for sanctioning the reports, generated the September 2021 article How Practical and Valuable are Elections Observer Missions in Grenada?
It should be instructive to realise that the problems and flaws which are identified in the electoral system by the various Elections Missions generally harmonise.
Repeated concerns highlighted by the OAS Mission for acting upon include Political or Campaign Financing, Electoral Technology Upgrade and Expansion, Electoral Constituency Boundaries Review, Electoral Registries, and Electoral Organisation.
In considering the need for strengthening and enhancing the institutional structure and operations of the Parliamentary Elections Office, OAS’s Preliminary Report on the 2022 general elections raises: “…. efforts should be made to strengthen the work of this critical body, through the allocation of greater human and financial resources …. to centralise essential electoral information and up-to-date material …. “.
Dismal State at the Elections Office
According to the 2026 National Budget along with the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, it appears that the vacant Established positions (9) at the PEO is higher than those positions which are filled (7).
The Grand Total allotted for staffing is EC$671,911 plus Other Payment Established Staff of $19,656 and Total Other Payment Established Staff $33,218.
How would such a personnel situation impact the ‘attitude and morale’ as well as the performance and achievement of the SoE/PEO, especially when considering the serious failures pertaining to the Corporate Plan of Key Priorities/Strategies for the year 2026?
The specific areas listed for addressing are thus: ‘Continue registration of eligible voters; Public awareness engagements on the electoral process; Voters registration system replacement; Consolidation of the electoral laws into one statute; Public consultations on electoral reform; Amendment of the Representation of the People Act; Planning for next General Elections’.
It is important and telling to also consider the Concluding Statement in the Statistical Report of the Parliamentary Elections Office on the General Elections held on Thursday, 23rd June, 2022.
The Report gives a Results Summary on the conduct, challenges and outcomes of the elections in all constituencies, with expressed aspirations of the SoE/PEO for approaching the Next Steps.
It presents that the PEO believes the proposed issues need to be addressed before the next constitutionally due general election, with a concerted effort made to address them within the first two and a half years of the election cycle.
Judgement Call on Value for Money
An annual budget of about five million dollars has been approved for the Elections Office, over the past four or so years, with $6,738,951 for 2026. How is this justified in terms of performance and output?
Whilst the Office meets various public protests, no Opposition has tabled any enquiries in Parliament!
J. K. Roberts