Opposition Member of Parliament Tabitha Sarabo-Halley has condemned a recent bill introduced by the government that seeks to amend the Representation of the People Act, warning that the proposed changes could open the door for electoral manipulation ahead of the 2025 elections.
The Bill, introduced last Friday by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, proposes replacing the word “shall” with “may” in Section 33C(1) of the Act. This section governs the revision of the official list of electors (OLE) and the non-resident electoral roll.
Section 33C(1) expressly states: “Where there is an interval of more than three months, but not exceeding six months, after the qualifying date with reference to which the official list of electors, or the non-resident electors roll is prepared under section 33A(1) and the day appointed for the next election after that date, the Commissioner shall cause the official list of electors and non-resident electors roll to be revised, in accordance with procedure established by the Commission by regulation.”
Under the current law, Section 33C(1) mandates that GECOM revise the OLE and non-resident roll if an interval of more than three months but no more than six months passes between the qualifying date and the election day. The revision is a statutory obligation designed to ensure the list is accurate and up-to-date. However, the proposed change would make the revision discretionary, giving GECOM the option to carry out these revisions rather than requiring them by law.
Sarabo-Halley expressed concern that replacing “shall” with “may” could lead to arbitrary decision-making, leaving the revision of the voter rolls vulnerable to political influence. She warned that such a move would undermine the integrity of the electoral system, erode transparency, and damage public trust.
This change risks turning a legal obligation into an optional action, creating the potential for manipulation and bias, Sarabo-Halley explained. The change “risks creating uncertainty, opening space for perceived or real manipulation, and undermining trust in elections.”
Political analysts have also raised alarms, suggesting that the amendment aligns with the People’s Progressive Party’s (PPP) historical efforts to manipulate electoral outcomes. They have drawn parallels to the 2020 elections, in which 47 ballot boxes from PPP strongholds lacked the required statutory documentation. Despite this, GECOM declared the results in favor of the PPP after significant pressure, a decision later upheld by a complicit judiciary and international community eager for regime change.
“This amendment is part of a broader strategy by the PPP to manipulate elections to their advantage,” one analyst stated. “After the fraud allegations in 2020, it appears they are laying the groundwork to repeat the same tactics in 2025.”
The PPP’s recent history of alleged electoral manipulation dates back to the 2006 elections, when GECOM was accused of rigging the vote in the party’s favor by awarding the Alliance for Change’s Region 10 parliamentary seat to the PPP. However, in the 2011 election, GECOM’s opposition-nominated commissioner Vincent Alexander exposed the irregularities, thwarting the party’s rigging efforts.
A senior PPP insider, speaking anonymously, confirmed the party’s fear of free and fair elections. “We are afraid of a clean, transparent process,” the source said, boasting about the PPP’s success in avoiding a clean voter list and biometric systems, with GECOM’s assistance. “Look out in 2025—we will fudge the numbers again. Everybody believes the PNC (People’s National Congress) are the riggers, not us.”
Sarabo-Halley, along with other opposition members, has voiced strong objections to the bill, arguing that replacing “shall” with “may” would give GECOM excessive discretion in revising the electoral roll. This, they claim, would increase the potential for manipulation, threatening the democratic process.
“This is not a move toward better elections,” one analyst explained. “It’s an attempt to subvert democracy and manipulate the electoral process. This amendment cannot be accepted or condoned.”
The bill is expected to face fierce opposition in the National Assembly. With the 2025 elections on the horizon, many fear that the proposed changes will further polarise the nation and create doubts about the fairness of the electoral process. Calls for transparency, accountability, and a commitment to free and fair elections continue to grow louder.
