By Mark DaCosta-The We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party is poised to address what it deems a blatant infringement on democratic principles in Region 10 by going to court. With an escalating crisis over the stalled election process for the regional leadership, the party has resolved to seek judicial redress following the failure of the Regional Executive Officer (REO), Dwight John, to implement statutory procedures after a tied vote.
The unfolding saga began on October 10, 2025, when the election for the Regional Chairman resulted in a deadlock, each of the leading candidates — Mark Goring for WIN and Dominique Blair for the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) — receiving nine votes.
This tie, however, was met with an unexpected halt by the Clerk of Council, Dwight John, who chose to interpret the situation as necessitating intervention from the Minister of Local Government. This intervention is perceived by many as an attempt to bypass established electoral protocols and centralise authority, undermining the self-governance that local councils are designed to uphold.
Legal representatives for WIN swiftly alerted the Clerk to the illegality of his suspension of the election process, citing the Local Democratic Organs Act, which explicitly delineates procedures for resolving tie votes. The law mandates that, after an initial tie, a second and, if necessary, a third round of voting must take place to clarify the leadership choice. Should a third tie occur, the Act calls for a complex proportional representation process based on councillors’ weighted votes — a clear framework that intends to prevent undue influence from external parties.
Facing a stark refusal to comply, WIN issued a 48-hour ultimatum, threatening legal action unless elections were promptly resumed. Despite attempts to communicate the statutory obligations to the REO, WIN received no response, prompting the party to escalate matters to the higher echelons of governance, including notifying the Attorney General and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
The implications of this standoff stretch beyond mere procedural oversight; they strike at the very heart of democratic integrity in our nation. Critically, WIN’s assertion that democracy must not be undermined by procedural ambiguities is crucial in rallying community support against what they perceive as an encroachment on their electoral rights. “The will of the people of Region 10 cannot be disregarded. The law is clear; the election process must continue until a Regional Chairman and Regional Vice Chairman are elected,” stated WIN’s representatives, signalling a firm commitment to defending local self-determination.
This troubling episode raises pivotal questions about the functioning of local governance in the face of apparent political manoeuvring rooted in disproportionate influence from central authorities. It serves as a cautionary tale regarding the risks of straying from established legal frameworks for the sake of expediency, particularly when such actions can jeopardise the very foundations of democracy that local councils represent.
Furthermore, there is a palpable sense of disillusionment among constituents who view this procedural suspension as an attack on their voices. As expressed by a WIN spokesperson, the reluctance of officials to uphold the law not only endangers democratic representation but erodes public confidence in elected institutions. The need for vigilant citizen engagement in governance has never been clearer, especially in light of this potential power grab.
As the legal proceedings advance, the outcome will likely establish critical precedents, influencing the balance of power within our governmental structures. It is imperative for the health of our democracy that the mandated electoral procedures are strictly adhered to, ensuring fairness, accountability, and the agency of local councils.
The unfolding situation stands as a crucial test for our nation’s political resilience, with WIN urging public mobilisation through community forums to garner support for the rule of law and democracy.
