Opposition-nominated Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Commissioners Vincent Alexander and Desmond Trotman have issued a scathing critique of the Chairperson, accusing her of unprecedented breaches of both statutory law and constitutional norms following the 2025 General and Regional Elections. The three opposition-nominated commissioners on GECOM include Alexander, Trotman, and Charles Corbin.
For the first time in GECOM’s history, Sections 96 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act were not followed. Section 96(1) mandates that:
“The Chief Election Officer shall, after calculating the total number of valid votes of electors which have been cast for each list of candidates, on the basis of the votes counted and the information furnished by returning officers, ascertain the result of the election.”
Section 99 further requires that:
“As soon as practicable, but not later than fifteen days after election day, the Commission shall publicly declare the results of the election and cause to be published in the Gazette a notification thereof, specifying the number of votes cast for each list of candidates, the number of rejected ballot papers, the number of seats allocated to each list of candidates, and the names of the persons who have become members of the National Assembly.”
Alexander and Trotman pointed out that the Chairperson failed to present the regional results to the Commission and refused to publicly declare them, contravening statutory obligations. She then unilaterally de-commissioned the Commission, dismissing opposition-nominated members, despite the fact that Article 163 of the Constitution vests the High Court with exclusive jurisdiction to resolve election-related disputes, including:
“(a) regarding the qualification of any person to be elected as a member of the National Assembly;
(b) whether an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been affected by any unlawful act or omission;
(c) regarding the filling of a vacant seat in the Assembly; or
(d) whether any person has been validly elected as Speaker of the Assembly or has vacated the office of Speaker.”
The two commissioners further challenged the Chairperson’s continuing authority, asserting that her “act of omission… preceded the finalization of the results and cannot be excused on the grounds that the Commission was not properly constituted.” They argued that if her interpretation of Article 163 were valid, she would also be required to step down, rather than unilaterally continuing to preside over GECOM, making decisions, and approving expenditures—including what they described as “huge bonuses to the CEO.” This, they contend, exposes a glaring conflict between her asserted legal position and her actions, undermining both transparency and accountability.
While Guyana has experienced shifting parliamentary dynamics before—the 2006 elections involved the People’s National Congress-One Guyana (PNCR-IG) and Alliance for Change (AFC) forming the opposition, and in 2011, the opposition comprised A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and AFC—the 2025 situation is unprecedented in scale and legal defiance. State analysts allege that the Chairperson, along with government-nominated commissioners and the Chief Elections Officer, may have manipulated electoral returns on a massive scale, and her refusal to present the official report to the Commission for review reflects an attempt to conceal discrepancies in the results.
The commissioners emphasised that GECOM’s statutory duty is to present and review election results collectively, including the evaluation of observer reports such as that of the European Union Election Observation Mission, which the Chairperson received but has yet to allow full scrutiny. Alexander and Trotman’s critique paints a picture of a Commission undermined from within, leaving the integrity of Guyana’s 2025 elections in serious question.
