A broad coalition of Guyanese civil society organizations is calling for urgent investigation into what they describe as a clear breach of the Constitution by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), which they accuse of ignoring the legal requirement that electors be “domiciled”—permanent residents—in Guyana.
In a strongly worded joint statement released on September 3, 2025, 12 civil society groups condemned GECOM’s rejection of concerns about the participation of foreign nationals in the 2025 elections, labeling the Commission’s dismissal as an attempt to deflect legitimate scrutiny.
“The basis of the call by Guyanese civil society organizations for an investigation into foreigners participating in Guyana’s elections has been rejected by GECOM and characterized as ‘unsubstantiated allegations’ aimed at undermining the integrity and credibility of the yet to be concluded elections,” the statement read.
However, the coalition argues that their concerns are firmly grounded in the Constitution of Guyana, citing Article 59, which states:
“Subject to the provisions of article 159, every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana.” (Emphasis added.)
They emphasise that Article 159(b) further clarifies the requirements for Commonwealth citizens:
“A Commonwealth citizen who is not a citizen of Guyana and who is domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year immediately preceding the qualifying date.”
The Oxford Dictionary defines “domicile” as a “place of permanent residence, dwelling-place, [or] home,” a meaning the civil society groups say is both legally and intuitively clear.
They criticise GECOM and other defenders of the current voter registration system for reducing eligibility to simply “residing in Guyana for a year,” thereby neglecting the equally crucial requirement of domicile—permanent settlement or long-term legal residence.
“While the legal meaning is clear, it also accords with the commonsense reaction to the absurd idea that merely living for a year in Guyana is a reasonable basis for voting eligibility,” the statement argues.
GECOM has reportedly dismissed these concerns on procedural grounds, stating that objections should have been raised during the Claims & Objections period. But the statement points out that the issue was, in fact, raised publicly in a Stabroek News letter dated August 20, 2025, complete with legal citations.
Troubling Allegations of Foreign Labour Involvement
Beyond the legal argument, the coalition raises a series of circumstantial concerns, particularly relating to the inclusion of temporary contract labourers—especially from India and Bangladesh—on the voters list.
Among the more alarming claims:
- Foreign labourers, many with limited English proficiency and minimal political knowledge, were reportedly transported en masse to polling stations.
- The Guyana Police Force allegedly facilitated the movement of these groups, raising questions about the state’s involvement.
- Some non-Guyanese voters were allegedly issued ID cards that were visually identical to Guyanese IDs, except for the word “Commonwealth” where “Guyanese” should appear.
- Concerns were also raised about whether participation in the elections was in any way tied to the terms of employment for these workers.
The statement draws a historical parallel to colonial-era practices of indentured labour, noting that the mass involvement of low-paid, unskilled, and often vulnerable foreign workers in the electoral process “raises troubling similarity to the notorious colonial abuse.”
“Why would this category of persons suddenly demonstrate – en masse, not an isolated individual – the sophistication needed to properly register to vote?” the groups ask.
Questions GECOM Must Answer
The civil society coalition poses a series of urgent questions for GECOM:
- How many non-domiciled foreign nationals were allowed to vote?
- What is the true extent of the practice?
- What impact might these votes have had on electoral outcomes?
- Why has GECOM not declared such votes invalid?
- Who was responsible for issuing ID cards to non-Guyanese voters?
They demand that GECOM clarify the criteria it uses for voter eligibility and insist the Commission educate the public on the meaning of “domicile” as enshrined in the Constitution.
A Cross-Section of Civil Society Voices
The statement is endorsed by a wide cross-section of Guyanese civil society organizations, including:
- Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA)
- Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC)
- Red Thread
- Guyana Organization of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP)
- Policy Forum Guyana
- Access to Information Group
- Amerindian Peoples Association (APA)
- General Workers Union (GWU)
- East Coast Clean-up Committee
- Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI)
- Guyana Society for the Blind
- SASOD Guyana
As the election results remain pending, the groups are demanding transparency, accountability, and a full investigation into what could amount to a systemic failure to uphold the constitutional requirements for voter eligibility.
“GECOM is responsible for all administrative aspects of elections and should declare all non-domiciled voters invalid,” the statement concludes.
This controversy adds yet another layer to the already fraught political landscape in Guyana and is likely to remain a central issue in the weeks ahead.
