KINGSTON, Jamaica — Former director of elections Orette Fisher has accused the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) of being “disingenuous” in a section of its statement issued yesterday which stated that the commission was not aware of any incidents or allegations of political interference into the operations of the Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ).

The ECJ said its statement was a response to recent media reports concerning court proceedings initiated by Fisher.

However, the former director of elections said the ECJ, in its statement, is alleging that he made “unsubstantiated statements in relation to political interference at the EOJ”.

“This I find disingenuous as after the court proceedings were withdrawn, I spoke to three independent members of the commission during which I pointed out that my email to staff on March 14, 2018 spoke of growing POLITICAL INFLUENCE and NOT political interference,” he said.

He further stated that he “continuously” brought the issue of “attempts at growing political influence” to the attention of the ECJ.

Fisher’s statement in full:

Dear Editor,

I write in response to an advertisement entitled ‘Statement by The Electoral Commission of Jamaica’ which appeared in your Sunday publication. The public is aware of the court proceedings which I had filed, seeking judicial review of the legality of a one-year appointment to the post of Director Elections, contrary to statute which mandates a seven-year appointment.

After further consideration, I chose to resign from the post before judgement was handed down. In addition to the fact that I did not wish to be in the post based on a court order (if the court ruled in my favor), I outlined the reasons for my decision in my resignation letter sent to the chairman on March 12 2018.

The court proceedings were subsequently withdrawn and that, to my mind had ended the matter.see copy attached) spoke of growing POLITICAL INFLUENCE and NOT political interference. This is attributable to the media which misquoted the email. Attempts at growing political influence is something which I continuously brought to the attention of the commission. A meeting was scheduled with the independent commissioners to discuss my resignation but the meeting was cancelled and never rescheduled.

The ECJ, in its statement is alleging that I made unsubstantiated statements in relation to political interference at the EOJ. This I find disingenuous as after the court proceedings were withdrawn, I spoke to three independent members of the commission during which I pointed out that my email to staff on march 14 2018 (

Based on the contents of the advertisement, I am authorising and requesting that the contents of my letter of resignation which outlined my concerns, be made public by the ECJ so the media and the general public can be made aware of the basis for my resignation. The ECJ is being very selective in what it releases but I am of the view that the time has come to state all and to clear the air.

Orrette Fisher