The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has, in a decisive and commendable act, rescinded its earlier policy permitting the use of cellular devices at polling stations on election day. This reversal constitutes not merely an administrative adjustment but a necessary and profound reaffirmation of the sacrosanct principles underpinning free, fair, and untainted elections.
The prohibition of cell phones within the precincts of polling stations is a bulwark against intimidation, coercion, and illicit surveillance, safeguarding the inviolability of the democratic process.
On August 11, 2025, in these very pages, I issued a clarion call in my op-ed, “GECOM’s Cell Phone Decision Undermines Free and Fair Elections,” cautioning that allowing cellular devices at polling stations posed a grave threat to the secrecy of the ballot.
The policy, as it then stood, opened the door to manifold abuses: the photographing of marked ballots, the transmission of coercive messages by political operatives, and the potential for post-election retaliation based on recorded polling activities. These risks were particularly acute in rural and politically volatile constituencies, where vulnerabilities to external pressures are often amplified.
The electoral process does not operate in isolation; it is embedded within a complex socio-political matrix characterised by historical mistrust, partisan tensions, and, at times, overt interference. The unchecked presence of cellular devices (ubiquitous instruments capable of instantaneous communication and documentation) within the sanctity of the polling station put at risk, in a real and direct way, the fundamental right of every citizen to cast their vote in privacy and free from external influence.
As the eminent jurist, Lord Denning, once observed, “The law must protect the individual citizen, not only in his person but in his freedom to exercise his rights without fear or favour.” GECOM’s initial policy failed this test; its reversal upholds it.
Again, this decision aligns Guyana with best practices and established democratic norms observed globally. From the robust electoral frameworks of Canada to the intricate systems of India, leading democracies prohibit the use of cellular devices at polling stations to preclude precisely the dangers GECOM’s earlier policy invited.
The photographing of ballots, for instance, undermines the secrecy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which mandates that elections be conducted “by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” Similarly, the potential for real-time communication between voters and external state, and non- state actors risks transforming the polling station into a space of coercion rather than a bastion of free choice.
The integrity of an election is not solely contingent upon the accuracy of votes cast but also upon the public’s confidence that the voting environment is secure and inviolable. As the renowned Caribbean political activist C.L.R. James asserted, “The right to vote is not merely a procedural act; it is the cornerstone of a people’s sovereignty, to be guarded with unrelenting vigilance.” GECOM’s initial misstep eroded this confidence; its rectification begins the arduous task of restoring it.
Still, this policy shift, while laudable, must not be viewed in isolation. It represents a necessary but woefully insufficient step toward comprehensive electoral reform. GECOM’s credibility remains encumbered by persistent challenges: opaque tabulation processes, delays in results reporting, and perceptions of partisan influence within the Commission’s operations. The prohibition of cellular devices addresses a symptom of electoral vulnerability but does not cure the underlying maladies that afflict Guyana’s democratic framework.
To build upon this decision, GECOM must pursue a multifaceted reform agenda. First, it must prioritise voter education to empower citizens with the knowledge to navigate the electoral process confidently. Second, the conduct of polling agents must be subject to rigorous oversight, with clear, enforceable guidelines to prevent undue political and influences.
Third, technological interventions must be judiciously implemented, ensuring they bolster rather than undermine public trust. Finally, GECOM must show an unwavering commitment to transparency, eschewing rhetorical assurances of neutrality in favour of tangible actions that place the voter at the heart of the electoral process.
The prohibition of cellular devices at polling stations is a victory for electoral integrity, but it is not a panacea. As the distinguished jurist Hans Kelsen noted, “Democracy requires not only the existence of laws but their constant adaptation to the evolving needs of justice.” GECOM’s decision reflects such an adaptation, but its work is far from complete. The Commission must now seize this moment to initiate a broader transformation of Guyana’s electoral system, ensuring that it is not only free and fair in principle but unimpeachable in practice.
This policy reversal is a testament to the power of reasoned critique and public advocacy. It underscores that vigilance and accountability remain indispensable to the preservation of democratic ideals. Yet, it also serves as a reminder that progress in electoral governance is incremental and demands sustained effort. GECOM must not rest on this laurel but instead view it as the foundation for a renewed commitment to electoral excellence.
In conclusion, the ban on cellular devices at polling stations is a triumph for the sanctity of the ballot and a reaffirmation of the voter’s right to cast their vote free from intimidation or surveillance. It is a good step toward restoring public confidence in an institution that has, at times, faltered under the weight of partisan pressures. But let this be merely the beginning.
GECOM must now embark on a comprehensive reform agenda to address the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine Guyana’s electoral system. Only through such firm and resolute action can the Commission truly and properly fulfill its mandate as the guardian of democratic sovereignty, ensuring that every citizen’s voice is heard, respected, and protected.
