A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament Sherod A. Duncan is questioning the accuracy and timing of a recent United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) publication on Guyana’s 2025 General and Regional elections, arguing that the document conflicts with the public record of the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) performance.
Duncan began by expressing his “sincere appreciation to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for its longstanding support to Guyana,” adding that “nothing in this statement diminishes that acknowledgment.” Nonetheless, he said the UNDP’s publication, “Strengthening Trust in Democracy: UNDP’s Support to Guyana’s 2025 General and Regional Elections,” must be “carefully and objectively examined.”
He described the timing of the publication as “notable,” pointing out that it was released immediately after the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) issued its Final Report and only days after President Irfaan Ali “publicly attacked that report, dismissing concerns about incumbency advantage, state-resource misuse, and other structural shortcomings.” In what he called a “politically charged context,” Duncan argued that “the tone and content of UNDP’s statement require measured scrutiny.”
At the core of Duncan’s critique is the UNDP’s assertion that GECOM “developed, adopted, and implemented” a Comprehensive Communications Strategy, a Branding Manual, and a Crisis Communication Protocol. The UNDP also commended GECOM for improved transparency, media relations, stakeholder engagement, and updated technology.
According to Duncan, these claims contradict observable reality. He stated that “the public record of GECOM’s actual conduct throughout the election period stands in stark contrast to this glowing assessment.” Between 1 May and 30 September 2025, GECOM issued roughly twenty election-related press statements but held “only a handful of press conferences, fewer than five in total.” He further noted that “none of these were livestreamed by GECOM itself,” despite livestreaming being a standard international practice to ensure equal access to information and to reduce misinformation.
Duncan added that at nearly all in-person engagements, “the Public Relations Officer was left to carry the responsibility alone,” while the GECOM Chair appeared only once. He highlighted the 22 November 2024 press conference during which journalist Gordon Moseley told the Chair she was “dodging questions,” describing this as a public expression of frustration that “underscores the gap between UNDP’s claims and the lived reality of election communications in Guyana.”
He said political stakeholders at GECOM meetings “complained of slow answers, inaccessible information, and unresolved queries regarding joined lists, polling agents, death removals, and voter-list accuracy.” According to Duncan, such problems “are not the hallmarks of a functioning ‘Crisis Communication Protocol.’ They are signs of institutional communication strain and internal silence.”
Equally concerning to Duncan were the omissions he identified in the UNDP’s publication. He noted that “there is no identification of remaining gaps, no discussion of outstanding reforms, no analysis of what did not work, and no candid reflection on structural weaknesses that still undermine public trust.” He argued that “every serious technical report includes an honest balance of strengths and shortcomings. UNDP’s statement does not,” adding that this absence of balance is “deeply concerning.”
Duncan insisted that if GECOM had truly adopted the strategies and protocols praised by the UNDP, these should have been visible to the public during the electoral cycle. “If a Communications Strategy truly exists, the public should have seen it during the election. If a Crisis Communication Protocol was adopted, it should have been visible in real-time engagement, not only in a donor report,” he said. “If deliverables were completed, Parliament should be able to scrutinize them. And if there are gaps, and the evidence clearly shows that there are, they must be acknowledged and addressed before the next electoral cycle.”
The APNU MP said the partnership “will pursue Parliamentary Questions, Motions, Committee inquiries, and disclosure requests” to ensure that the full truth about GECOM’s communications systems, protocols, and obligations is placed on the record. He stated that these concerns, particularly the “discrepancy between UNDP’s claims and GECOM’s actual communication practices,” will continue to shape APNU’s parliamentary agenda.
Duncan concluded that “Guyana needs clarity, not contradictions,” adding: “If a communications strategy truly existed, the Guyanese people should have seen it in action, not only in a UNDP statement.”
GECOM’s limited public engagement, including fewer than five press conferences and the absence of any official livestreams, created significant information gaps throughout the 2025 election cycle. Stakeholders repeatedly reported delayed responses, inaccessible data, and unresolved issues related to the voters list, polling agents, and death removals, matters central to electoral integrity. Combined with the Chair’s near-total absence from public briefings, these shortcomings undermine transparency and weaken the credibility of any claim that the elections were fully free and fair.
