By Mark DaCosta- After the recent General and Regional Elections on September 1, 2025, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has issued a fierce response to allegations raised by various civil society organisations, including the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA). Concerns have emerged regarding the integrity of the electoral process, particularly relating to foreign nationals allegedly participating in voting, which has raised serious questions about GECOM’s credibility and impartiality.
GECOM’s press release, posted on September 2, expresses dismay at the circulation of a statement by 11 credible national organisations that questioned the management of the recent elections. While the Commission claims to have conducted the elections efficiently, notable issues have reportedly emerged in the aftermath, leading to scepticism among the populace about the electoral integrity. Many citizens, who remain disillusioned by GECOM’s past performances, continue to accuse the Commission of favouritism towards the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
The perception is strengthened by GECOM’s recent hiring of known PPP operatives in key positions at its headquarters, Chairperson ret’d Justice Claudette Singh’s voting records that always aligns with the PPP-nominated Commissioners, and the role of Attorney General Anil Nandlall as GECOM’s legal advisor whilst being a PPP candidate in the 2025 elections
Reports from multiple sources have highlighted troubling incidents where foreign nationals, specifically groups of Indian and Bangladeshi workers, were seen arriving at polling stations in significant numbers under suspicious circumstances. Observations suggest these individuals were met by senior police officials, indicating a level of prior arrangement that raises alarms about the legitimacy of their voting rights. Allegations have emerged that these foreign nationals presented Guyanese National ID cards with incorrect information in the nationality field, which should legally disqualify them from participation in the electoral process.
Civil society organisations have sounded the alarm regarding these irregularities, pointing out that the legal framework mandates that Commonwealth nationals can only participate in elections after residing in the country for no less than a year. This raises critical questions about GECOM’s effectiveness in safeguarding the electoral process and following established laws.
Moreover, GECOM has been urged to provide transparency concerning the number and status of foreign voters registered in the elections, including how they were permitted to vote under potentially dubious circumstances. Observers are demanding clarification on whether the participation of specific foreign nationals was coerced or a result of contractual obligations tied to their employment in the country.
The press release from GECOM firmly rejects these allegations, asserting that the claims serve only to undermine the progress made in conducting the elections. However, sceptics argue that such a defensive stance from GECOM reflects a deeper issue of credibility. The widespread public unease about GECOM’s impartiality — particularly given its perceived alignment with the PPP — fuels apprehension about the integrity of the electoral process, especially in light of ongoing accusations of manipulation and bias.
Concerns about voting irregularities, paired with GECOM’s unwillingness to entertain these grave accusations, further complicate an already fraught electoral landscape. Numerous organisations insist that the legitimacy of the September elections cannot be affirmed without thorough investigations into the reported foreign participation and voting irregularities.
According to an analyst, the rising chorus of dissent serves as a reminder that successful elections should not only encompass the absence of violence but also require credibility and inclusiveness. Without immediate action from GECOM and decisive responses from the government and judiciary, doubts over the legitimacy of the 2025 elections will continue to cast a long shadow over our nation’s governance, potentially jeopardising our access to the wealth derived from our natural resources. Amid all this, the public waits with bated breath, demanding accountability and transparency in a crucial democratic process.
