The Election and Boundaries Department has submitted a report to Governor General Sir Colville Young outlining its findings on the verification of some 20,160 signatories to a petition originated by Oceana Belize and the Belize Coalition to Save Our Natural Heritage (BCSNH) last year that calls for Belizeans to vote in a referendum stating their position on drilling for petroleum offshore Belize’s coast and in protected areas.
At a press conference called this afternoon at the NEMO Training Room, Chief Elections Officer Josephine Tamai, who supervised the near two-month process of going through the signatures on the petition, announced that of the collected signatures, they were only able to verify 13,112, or just over 7 percent of the number of registered voters as of December, 2011 (171,405). This is 65.03% (quoted as 60% at the press conference) of the total number of signatures presented.
The Referendum Act, first passed in 1999, was amended in 2008 to allow for a successful petition, that is, one that is accompanied by signatures representing 10% or more of the registered electors in Belize as appearing on the approved voters list, who agree that a matter is of sufficient public importance to be submitted to the general electorate for their views through a referendum. Therefore, the cut-off number is 17, 140.
Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of the Public Service, Governance Improvement, Elections and Boundaries and Sports, Charles Gibson, described the process as “challenging” and noted that 14 additional staff from other Government departments were deployed to assist the Election and Boundaries staff in what he says is the first such verification exercise. He acknowledged that there were many lessons learned and recommendations to be made for improvement.
According to CEO Tamai, upon receiving the petition from the Governor General on December 9, 2011, they set to work.
Both Gibson and Tamai noted that on the petition forms the information was listed without reference to division and district, making the job of the Department a bit trickier. Some duplicates found by Oceana were crossed out and not counted.
For the remainder, the officers checked the signature on the petition against that on file at the Department in the official record card that every voter signs when he or she registers to vote.
The Act requires that an individual’s full name (in block letters), date of birth, residence, electoral division in which registered and other information as necessary must be provided. The Department did not insist on every facet of information asked for by the Act, and Tamai commended Oceana for also including registration numbers and even telephone numbers, which eased any uncertainties that arose due to multiple persons having similar names and otherwise.
Of the remaining 8,047 signatories rejected, 1,440 were denied on grounds of illegality. Of these, 1,180 were determined to not be registered in the system; 127 signed the petition twice and 2 signed three times. These individuals, under subsection 5 of the revised Act, are guilty of an offense and can be prosecuted. The remaining 6,607’s signatures on the petition did not match those on their record card, said Tamai.
The Act only calls for verification of signatures – that is, any mark or script that appears on the signature line – and Tamai advises that potential petitioners should make use of the voters’ ID, which also carries the elector’s signature.
The CEO presented a PowerPoint presentation with examples of signatories to the petition whose signatures appeared different, used a different type of signature (X, thumbprint) on one while signing on the other, or never signed at all even though their information was recorded. Despite being promised a copy of the presentation, at press time the press was yet to get such a document.
The Act contains no specification of how to vet signatures, and both the CEO and Chief Elections Officer recognized that persons’ signatures may change over time. Similarities can be noted even in the pairs of signatures used as examples in the presentation, and it was acknowledged that, without the benefit of any handwriting experts on hand, there was no way of being sure that the signatures were not indeed made by the same person. CEO Tamai took the mantle of making the “final call” on any borderline cases.
The law does not provide for how to handle cases such as this, and the petitions were conveyed back to the Governor General as of Wednesday, meaning that he will have the final say as to whether Oceana may be asked to gather more signatures to meet the cut-off point, or whether this is the end.
Both CEO Tamai and CEO Gibson categorically denied instructing their junior officers, or being instructed by their superiors, to deliberately disallow enough signatures to stop the referendum in its tracks.
The Governor General, in writing Oceana Vice President Audrey Matura-Shepherd of the results of the verification, closes by stating that “In the circumstances, I regret that no further action can be taken in this matter.”
Today, Mrs. Shepherd, who is presently out of country, replied, stating in relation to the high number of rejections: “We are extremely concerned about the legitimacy of that number, as well as the lack of an explanation as to why they were rejected. In this context we humbly request that through the authority of your office, a formal and expeditious inquiry may be made to the Elections and Boundaries Department as to what the particular circumstances were which caused the aforementioned rejections.”
In a late evening release, the Coalition states that it “remains firm in its position that the signatures were collected in a transparent and open manner. The petition signatures were pre-vetted through an independent consultant researcher to ensure overall accuracy of the petition as best as possible.”
It adds, “The referendum on offshore oil exploration and drilling is the people’s referendum, giving all Belizeans the right to vote and decide on a critical issue that has long term generational impact. The right to vote is at the heart of democracy and should not be denied.”
And even if the decision were overturned, it appears March 7 will not be the referendum date, because the Prime Minister has advised the Governor General to dissolve the House of Representatives, meaning that it cannot meet to push through the referendum. The Governor-General alone sets the date for a referendum, within thirty days of receiving verification of a successful petition, in this case.
Oceana’s Matura-Shepherd told KREM Radio this afternoon that the recent events suggest that the Government – which has been reticent on the matter since it first emerged as a public issue – appeared to have done all it could to scuttle the process, but the fight appears not to be done yet.