The Alliance For Change (AFC) has condemned the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for what it calls a blatant act of electoral bias after being denied access to a hard copy of the Preliminary List of Electors (PLE). The party accused GECOM of favouring only the two traditional parties — the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the People’s National Congress (PNC) — in a move that has raised serious concerns about the Commission’s neutrality and the credibility of the 2025 elections.
On Friday, AFC Leader Nigel Hughes disclosed via a Facebook post that GECOM had officially informed the party that only the PPP and PNC would be provided with hard copies of the PLE. The AFC shared the correspondence at a press conference on Saturday, calling it yet another sign that GECOM is failing in its duty to present a level playing field for all political contenders.
“The refusal of GECOM to provide a hard copy of the Preliminary List of Electors (PLE) to any party other than the two traditional parties is a clear signal to the population that there are no other contestants in this election but the two older parties,” the AFC stated.
The party warned that the decision constitutes a calculated attempt to undermine smaller or non-traditional parties and limit their capacity to compete fairly.
“GECOM’s actions constitute a further attempt to impair the candidacy of the smaller parties,” the AFC declared.
However, political observers note that the AFC itself should not reasonably be classified as a “small party.” Since its formation in 2005, the AFC has participated in every General and Regional election since 2006, either independently or in alliance, and has held seats in the National Assembly. The party has served in government and continues to play a critical role in Guyana’s political landscape.
Given this history, any denial of access on the basis of size or relevance raises fundamental questions about GECOM’s classification criteria — none of which have been made public. It remains unclear what measure the Commission is using to define a “small party,” and whether such a determination could be credibly made before or only after the declaration of results. If the latter, GECOM risks making a mockery of the electoral process and undermining the very principle of electoral integrity it is mandated to uphold.
Moreover, the suggestion that budgetary constraints may be the reason for withholding printed copies of the PLE does not withstand scrutiny. From observing the political scene since last year, GECOM would have been fully aware that more than two parties — including the AFC — would be contesting the elections. The Commission, which receives millions in state funding, should have budgeted for equitable distribution of basic electoral materials, especially given its constitutional obligation to transparency and fairness.
“In light of the millions of dollars which GECOM has been the recipient of, we ask what part of GECOM’s budget would be impacted by the provision of these lists to all parties — especially when this was done in previous elections,” the AFC pointed out.
The party also reiterated concern over what it views as a troubling conflict of interest: the revelation that Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affair, Anil Nandlall S.C, a declared PPP candidate, has been advising GECOM on electoral matters.
“These developments come shortly after we learnt that the Attorney General, who is a candidate for the PPP, was advising and had advised GECOM on the electoral matters in which his party was a contestant,” the AFC stated.
The accumulation of these decisions, the party warned, reflects a growing intent by GECOM to direct the 2025 elections in a manner that compromises fairness, disenfranchises legitimate contenders, and erodes public trust.
“GECOM has yet again by its decision disclosed a particular intent in the conduct of the 2025 elections,” the statement concluded.
The AFC has called on civil society, the international community, and the Guyanese public to demand transparency, accountability, and equal treatment for all participants in what should be a free and fair democratic process. It is yet to be seen if the international community, that seeks to influential Guyana’s election, will remain silent on this.
