THE CONTROVERSY over the composition of the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) has thrown off track the planned demonstration of an electronic voting system which had been scheduled for September 7; and vendors of the prospective system have been asked to delay their trip until the local problems are sorted out.
This is obviously related to the dispute over the Ryan Peralto patenting of an electronic voting system which raises more questions than answers.
No clear statement has yet been made by the Administration to set in context an issue that has been under discussion within the EAC from early last year. While Minister Peter Phillips has spoken vaguely about getting the matter determined through legal consultation, the fact is that both the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have offered extensive opinions and suggestions on the issue. And both Government and Opposition have met and exchanged correspondence as to the propriety of a member of the EAC holding a patent on a voting system which is fundamental to representative government.
Early in the process the legal advice was that the Electoral Advisory Committee could not hold a patent since it was established by statute as an advisory agency; rather some trust or foundation should be set up to hold the patent.
What is more the existing Patent Act of Jamaica inhibits a patent filed in the United States, for example, having any legal effect locally.
It may well be as is now claimed in some quarters that slow response in establishing the requisite trust, foundation, or company is what promoted Mr. Peralto to proceed as he did.
His fulsome backing by Opposition Leader Edward Seaga undoubtedly injects a strong political note into the dispute which will clearly spread to the matter of completing the independent membership of the EAC.
Even more controversy has been injected with Mr. Seaga verbal attack on the Director of Elections Danville Walker over the cancellation of the vendor demonstrations. The political climate is heating up.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
