“Migrant voters” refute GPF’s data that they were not in Guyana on E-Day

0
L-R: Karishma Raghunandan, Sursattie Ramnarine, Sydney Douglas Jones

Scores of persons are now coming forward to not only reject the list of alleged migrant voters provided by the APNU/AFC but also a list produced by the Guyana Police Force’s Immigration Department.

The Immigration Department provided GECOM with a list of 172 persons, claiming they were not in Guyana on Elections Day.

Sursattie Ramnarine appears at Number 54 on the Police List. Police told GECOM that Ramnarine left Guyana in April 2019 but never returned to the country in time to vote on March 2.

But in a sworn affidavit, Ramnarine confirmed that she was in the country and physically presented herself at a polling station to cast her vote.

Mohamed Sheik Ameer is listed as Number 159 on the Police List, which contends that he would have left the country in September 2019 but never returned in time for Elections Day. This is not true, according to Ameer, who also signed an affidavit to this effect.

It is the same thing for Sydney Douglas Jones. His name appears on the Police List at  Number 145. Police claims he left the country in April 2016 and never returned in time for the elections. But Jones assures he was in the country on Elections Day.

Karishma Raghunandan appears at Number 143 on the Police List, but she argues too was in Guyana on March 2.

Nishani Anesa Bissessar is Number 50 on the Police List. She presented an Affidavit of Existence and Presence to attest to her physically voting.

Affidavits presented by some of the alleged “migrant voters”

The Guyana Police Force has since sought to clarify why the list it provided to GECOM has what appears to be numerous inaccuracies.

According to the Force: “Migration Data produce by the Immigration Department of the Guyana Police Force is generated through its Record system which includes an Electronic Border Management System. This system however, does not record persons who travelled illegally.”

The Police Force, is therefore saying, that these persons would have left Guyana “legally” but returned “illegally”.