Dear Editor,
GECOM`s decision to terminate three officers, including the CEO will undoubtedly be the subject of much commentary and controversy over the next few days and beyond. Indeed, there is much to be said on the matter. For immediate attention I wish to disclose the following:
1. GECOM issued a statement on the terminations, which in relation to the CEO specifically states: “Justice Singh posited:
2. That in relation to the CEO, clause 9 of his contract stipulate that his services can be terminated by giving him three months` notice or payment in lieu of;”
3. What Clause 9 of the CEO contract actually states is: “Guyana Elections Commission may terminate the contract herein by giving three (3) months` notice in writing to the Chief Election Officer/Commissioner of Registration for any of the following reasons:
1. If, in the reasonable opinion of the Guyana Elections Commission the Chief Election Officer/Commissioner of Registration is guilty of serious misconduct.
2. If, in the reasonable opinion of the Guyana Elections Commission the Chief Elections Officer/Commissioner of Registration has failed to comply with the terms of his contract.
3. Where, in the reasonable opinion of Elections Commission the Chief Election Officer/Commissioner of Registration is in breach of any clause or obligation in his contract.”
None of the conditions stated in Clause 9 were proffered much less proven, yet Clause 9 is cited as the provision under which the CEO`s contract is being terminated.
For the time being, I will leave it to the objective and unbiased section of the public to opine as to what may have gone amiss in GECOM`s decision. It is apparent to me that GECOM will find refuge in its own pronouncement: “That it is trite law that not even a court of law can enforce a contract for personal services against an employer terminating the contract of an employee since the proper relief for a breach in an employment contract for personal services lies in damages;”
This development is symptomatic of three things: 1. the evident disparity between what the law provides for and what is just. This is similar to previous laws that provided for enslavement although enslavement was not just; 2. there are those who swore that ‘they would get rid of the three officers at any cost’; 3. and the stark disregard for the Rule of Law in the manner in which the current regime is administering public affairs.
Yours sincerely
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
