“I will stay my course and do all in my power to ensure I preserve the integrity that the office demands.” These are the words purported to be that of Grenada’s newest Supervisor of Elections (SoE), Arthur Pierre, as disseminated on the E-paper of the Grenada Informer for the week ending 09 May 2025.
In what ‘context, definition and parameter’ does Mr. Pierre pitch this statement, and to what end? This is critical to be ascertained, as the Grenadian-people analyses for putting trust in the electoral system.
A conscious patriotic Grenadian would think that a public officer who has been appointed as Supervisor of Elections and by virtue of this role “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority”, has no other obligation or no other choice than to keep the ‘spirit and substance’ of the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office which has been taken and subscribed, with foremost to “honour, uphold and preserve the Constitution of Grenada” in faithfully executing the functions of that office.
For Mr. Pierre to be on a ‘designed course’ other than what is expected by descent Grenadians, within the ambits of Grenada’s 1974 Constitution and its pertinent legislation, would spell travesty for the integrity of the Office, of the electoral system and of the show of “free and fair” elections; Hope Not.
The constitutional ‘independence and security’ afforded the office of SoE, also requires that personality and aptitude be adapted for the ‘grand and prominent’ role of the office, and along with this comes diverse challenges of public’s expectations, scrutiny and even condemnations.
Mr. Pierre must indeed be ‘clear and resolute’ as the SoE and must realise that an appointee to such a ‘weighty and exposed’ position needs not merely be concerned about preserving the integrity of the Office, but also in preserving his/her integrity and name, if merited for cherishing.
In this regard, experiences are also helpful, as can be exemplified or be learnt by the resignation of Mr. Aaron Francois sometime in April 2014 less than about six months after being appointed as SoE, ‘due to professional and personal reasons’, which could have been caused by political ‘pressures and dictates’ from within and/or from without of the Government of Keith Mitchell’s New National Party (NNP) from 19 February 2013 general elections.
The NNP was formed upon the restoration of constitutional governance in October 1983 and dominated the elections’ climate in Grenada over the decades.
Its main political rival as of October 1987, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) accounts for NNP’s feat with the elections by decrying about the mingling of NNP’s operatives in the electoral offices, the rigging of the elections by NNP, and even by the collaborating of NNP with external forces such as Cambridge Analytica with its various versions and derivatives.
Is SoE Pierre set and continuing the said course of the NNP which features ‘many on-going concerns and systemic deficiencies with the management of the electoral process, and including the pertinent issues as flagged in the various reports of the Overseas Elections Observers Missions’?
That is – is SoE Pierre proud to be on the same course of what has been complained about by letter of 10 May 2022 and published on a local News-website as Dickon Mitchell writes Supervisor of Elections?
Has SoE Pierre accepted the philosophy that entities have to oppose each other ‘for opposition sake’ in order to hold a ‘competitive advantage’ towards gaining a powerful position, as the article Must Grenadians Continue To Tolerate A Questionable Electoral System? alludes about the 23 June 2022 ruling NDC of Dickon Mitchell under whose auspices and advice the replacement of the SoE was made.
It seems to be proving that new SoE Pierre, replacing Mr. Elvis Morain, is on a course to “preserve the integrity that the Office demands” without the inputs of Civil Society.
This can be reasonably concluded as Pierre seeks to ‘insult, embarrass, debase and disengage’ at least a Grouping of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) which has been demonstrating much passion regarding the affairs of the electoral system.
In strongly refuting the public declaration by the Grouping with its concerns of ‘repeated delays and inconsistencies, and a lack of follow-through, transparency and accountability about the new SoE’, Pierre publicly positioned the group as being ‘unfair, aggressive, confrontational and demanding’.
By doing so however, Pierre may just be condemning himself and opening for many questions in relation to his role and performance thus far. It has also been reported that new SoE Pierre treats the assertions of the Grouping as “misleading and unfair” allegations, which might prove to be unfortunate on his part.
SoE Pierre needs to qualify or to describe the extent of the aggressiveness and confrontation which has been attributed to CSOs.
Simultaneously Pierre needs to understand the role and mood of Civil Society in the advocacy and safeguard of Democracy, and the amount and manner of the threats instigated against and met out to CSOs in the adversarial and tribal politics as exists in the country.
Shouldn’t SoE Pierre be convinced that by snubbing the key individuals of the particular CSO group, and/or by busting Civil Society based on “divide and rule” tactics, this approach might just be worsening the situation of the electoral system and of the democratic climate?
Is SoE Pierre naïve about the invaluable contributions and the persistent struggles of the CSOs in the electoral process; for example, with its production and declaration of a Code of Political Conduct for Grenada dating back as far as 2008 at least?
How acquainted is new SoE Pierre with the records, the outstanding grievous matters raised by the various stakeholders, and the work plan of the Parliamentary Elections Office (PEO) with its philosophy that “all citizens must be served with dignity, honesty and respect for their right to information pertaining to the electoral process”, so as to allow all persons to participate in the electoral process without hindrance or fear of discrimination?
In fact; it should be of interest to know what uniqueness Pierre brings in the management of PEO towards advancing Electoral Efficiency and Justice in Grenada.
SoE Pierre must justify whether or not it is “misleading and unfair” for the average citizen to grade as “lack of transparency and accountability” about the PEO which he manages as of 29 May 2024.
On whose part is it about “misleading and unfair” dealings with the Grenadian people when consultations on the Voter Registration Process “have been postponed until further notice” but to date these consultations have not been resumed nor have there been any explanations for the postponement and/or for the no resumption?
Who is at fault and conniving, when there have been a series of serious failures of the main servers of the Computerized Voter Registration System to the extent of the great risk that chaos would prevail with the non-functioning of the system, if general elections should be called anytime from now?
The repeated crashes of the Registration System may well have been intended to be kept a secret; and as hinted by the article Sorry State of Grenada Voter Registration System, this scenario could be pointing to a conspiracy for the next general elections.
Although there have not been any violent eruptions, elections have been marred with many ‘controversies and inadequacies’ which impacts its outcomes.
Is Mr. Pierre prepared to punish the entire nation and/or to compromise the nation’s sovereign democracy by failing to fulfil the promise made at a recent meeting, to forward the proposal with the Terms Of Reference for the purchasing of the new software for the Registration System, because of the ‘perceived offensive’ modus operandi, also involving “ultimatums and timelines with threats”, of the Grouping in question by the SoE?
The Grouping with other stakeholders had attended the 09 May 2025 meeting called by the PEO/SoE to discuss “the upcoming implementation of the new Identity Document Issuance System (IDIS)” as relates to upgrading and fortifying the Registration System, but with many issues left ‘unclear and unresolved’.
Is the Power Point paper about purchasing the IDIS classified? What does it take for new SoE Pierre to consider it “necessary or expedient” to hold a press conference and/or to submit a comprehensive report to Parliament so as to apprise the Grenadian people about the status of the PEO, including the problems and limitations it faces, and about the proceedings for the IDIS, including the specifications and stages of its implementation?
Should the people conclude that the new System has already been identified or sourced or ordered, and been contracted for, in association with consultant Dr. Justine Cleophas Pierre, by referring to his pronouncements about Grenada’s electoral system and to his press publications on “Data-Driven Democracy: The Science Behind Predicting Election Victories in the Caribbean and Developing Nations”?
Shouldn’t the new SoE Pierre really seize the opportunity to refute, to disassociate the PEO from, and to reproach accordingly, all website-sources which purports to have access to the business of the PEO/SoE, such as for registering Online to vote at elections including recipients under Grenada’s Citizenship By Investment (CBI) programme? Why silence?
The Jury is out about Supervisor Pierre’s statement: “I will stay my course and do all in my power to ensure I preserve the integrity that the (‘elections’) office demands.”
So too, a Warrant is out about who is “misleading and unfair” to the public on Grenada’s Electoral System under this new Dispensation!
J.K Roberts