LOCAL elections watchdog group Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE) has thrown its support behind the Senate for the removal of mandatory sentences of persons found guilty of open voting.

In a press release yesterday, CAFFE said the imposition of mandatory sentences was contrary to good governance.
"Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections supports the position taken by the majority of Senators that the imposition of mandatory sentences for persons found guilty of open voting is contrary to sound principles of the administration of justice and good governance," the group said.

The Senate, in a landmark move on Friday, June 14, amended the proposals made by the Electoral Advisory Commission (EAC) to facilitate secret voting despite the long-held tradition of accepting proposals from the commission, because of its tripartite membership.

And last Tuesday parliamentarians reached a stalemate in accepting an amendment to three bills made earlier by the Senate giving magistrates more discretion in penalising individuals who breach electoral laws.

The bills amending the Representation of the People Act, the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation Act and the Parish Councils Act were each passed with one amendment after several members in the Senate raised objections to the mandatory nature of the penalties the Electoral Advisory Commission had prescribed for breaches.

The bill mandates that persons who vote openly in elections should be subject to a fine of between $20,000 and $80,000, plus imprisonment with or without hard labour of three to five years.

But yesterday, CAFFE described the use of mandatory sentences as a "relic of 17th and 18th century legislative approaches", saying that it was necessary to give judges discretionary powers of sentencing in cases of open voting, as many factors could influence the crime, chief among them voter intimidation.

"In CAFFE's opinion there are a wide variety of circumstances which may lead to a person committing the offence of open voting," the group explained. "There is a vast difference between a person who openly displays his or her ballot as a part of a bribery arrangement and a person who displays his or her ballot because of intimidation. It is therefore wrong to strip the Court of its discretion to make the punishment fit the offence as well as the circumstances of the offender."

The group also expressed disapproval with the tradition of having Electoral Commission proposals approved without amendment at all the stages they appear before parliament.

"It is therefore alarming that it is being suggested that 'there is a convention that whatever the commission puts forward, it is enacted without amendment'. Conventions cannot be inconsistent with the law of the Constitution or recognised principles of good governance."

"CAFFE does not therefore agree with the contention that parliament is obliged to accept the recommendation of the Electoral Commission that mandatory sentences should be introduced where it considers that such a measure is contrary to principle and the proper administration of justice," the group said.

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World