The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has no desire, interest, or respect for free, fair, and credible elections, the very principles they once championed while in opposition. Now that they are in power, the fundamental right of one-man-one-vote, which workers fought to secure, only matters to them if the vote can be used, whether by fair or foul means, to return them to office. That is the unmistakable message PPP-nominated commissioner Clement Rohee sought to convey in his response to concerns expressed by yours truly about the importance of free, fair, and credible elections.
Reference is made to his letter dated 5th June 2025. Let me say directly to Rohee: I stand by every word of my article ‘We Demand Electoral Justice—Now!’ which seems to have offended him. The observations and recommendations in that letter would only offend those pursuing lawless and nefarious actions to produce outcomes they dishonestly claim reflect the people’s will.
The PPP’s shenanigans to gain power are a matter of public record, even if some seek to hide or ignore them. Over the last two decades, this nation has not forgotten:
- The 1997 Doodnauth Singh debacle, when a president was sworn in before the results were verified; elections that were later vitiated by the court.
- The 2006 elections, when the (Guyana Elections Commission) GECOM awarded an Alliance for Change (AFC) seat to the PPP, then told the AFC to go to court—fully aware the case would be lost.
- The 2011 elections, when GECOM tried to award an A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) seat to the PPP, a move thwarted only by the intervention of the Opposition commissioner before the declaration.
The 2020 elections will go down in history as one where GECOM and external forces trampled on statutory requirements for determining a valid vote. This resulted in the PPP’s return to office, despite clear evidence, present in the public domain, that shenanigans were rampant in PPP strongholds. This lawlessness was enabled by a complicit court and external forces bent on regime change not on upholding the legitimate electoral process, outlined in the Rule of Law in keeping with our indigenous electoral system.
Rohee must stop the pretense.
The call still stands for:
- A clean, credible voters list;
- Biometric voter verification; and
- Total reform of GECOM.
Equally, the call stands to “fellow Guyanese to support every lawful action necessary to protect our democratic rights. We cannot remain silent while our democracy is being dismantled before our eyes. And the time to act is now, not tomorrow. Now!” The PPP shouldn’t be afraid of these basic requirements if confident the party could win an election by fair means.
I still believe Guyana can afford to implement biometric verification and produce a clean voters list before going into another election with a fraudulent process.
It is not too late to take a page from the 1990 experience of President Desmond Hoyte and Minority Leader Cheddi Jagan, who responded to public demands for electoral reform. From 2020 to 2025, these demands have been ignored by GECOM, the PPP regime, and a complicit diplomatic community, which appears more concerned with their own self-interest, failing to understand that what affects one affects all.
If Rohee wants to interpret my recommendations as lawless, that is a figment of his imagination or a reflection of his fear that others are now prepared to meet the PPP where it stands—as a lawless regime.
My adherence to the Rule of Law has always been clear and unambiguous. I stand by every comment made during the 2020 elections, including the Recount Exercise, Order 60/2020, and GECOM’s failure as a constitutionally independent body to execute and implement that Order to its finality. My writings from that period are supported by law and principles and remain available in the public domain for review. I make no apology for standing on the side of right, even if right may have lost.
Let me touch fleetingly on the diplomatic community and Rohee’s interpretation that my article was an attack on them. I would have expected that they read my article in its entirety. For they too must be held accountable in helping to fix the very problems they have identified, and in some instances, helped to create. Accountability does not discriminate. Smart diplomats understand this and would seek to address the situation, not deflect from it.
Moreover, it would be a stretch for the diplomatic community to take seriously, without their own inquiry, the words of a man who once could not differentiate the Dominican Republic from the Commonwealth of Dominica. If Rohee cannot get basic geography correct, then one cannot expect him to grasp or be correct on more complex issues to which he remains a stranger.
Finally, let me advise Rohee: I am proud of my ancestry. Unlike him, I am not ashamed to identify with my people. If I cannot speak for the freedoms and rights of the group I belong to, then I forfeit the right to speak for any other. Rohee will not deter or drive fear into me from being proud in my skin—representing and holding accountable my race or any other when it comes to standing up for what is just and fair, consistent with time-honoured principles, international conventions, and local laws that flow from them.
Likewise, I will unflinchingly challenge any act or behaviour that seeks to trample these.
