Social commentator GHK Lall has issued a sweeping critique of the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) recent assessment of Guyana’s 2025 general elections, arguing that the organisation’s praise of the Guyana Elections Commission is fundamentally disconnected from the reality experienced by citizens.
In a letter to the press, Lall thanked the UNDP for its involvement but rejected its conclusions. “A team from the United Nations Development Program came, helped, and observed Guyana’s 2025 elections. Many thanks… The GECOM machinery worked well, said the UNDP. Sorry, no thanks,” he wrote. The UNDP’s report, which highlighted system improvements and operational efficiencies, has since become the focus of growing scrutiny from political stakeholders and independent observers.
Even UNDP’s assertion that GECOM “developed, adopted, and implemented” a Comprehensive Communications Strategy, a Branding Manual, and a Crisis Communication Protocol was, according to critics, without merit. The report also praised GECOM’s transparency, improved media relations, stronger engagement with political stakeholders, inclusive messaging, and the use of upgraded technology to enhance credibility during the 2025 cycle.
These claims have been sharply disputed by parliamentarian Sherod Duncan of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), who described them as disinformation. Duncan noted that from 1 May to 30 September 2025, GECOM issued roughly twenty press statements related to the elections, yet when it came to live public engagement, which he described as the clearest test of any communications strategy, the Commission held fewer than five press conferences. None of these were livestreamed by GECOM, despite livestreaming being standard international practice meant to ensure transparency and equal access to information.
Duncan highlighted that at almost all of these engagements the Public Relations Officer was left to manage the responsibility alone. The Chairperson appeared only once for the entire cycle, while the Chief Elections Officer and Deputy CEO deferred answers to several critical questions. At a 22 November 2024 press conference, veteran journalist Gordon Moseley confronted the Chair and said she was “dodging questions,” a moment that publicly exposed the gap between the UNDP’s praise and the experiences of the media.
Stakeholders at GECOM’s own meetings also complained of slow answers, inaccessible information, and unresolved questions about joined lists, polling agents, death removals, and the accuracy of the voters list. These repeated failures, Duncan argued, do not resemble the operation of any credible Crisis Communication Protocol but instead reflect deeper institutional silence.
Concerns about accuracy and transparency extend beyond communications failures and into compliance with the law itself. Sections 96 and 99 of the Representation of the Peoples Act set out GECOM’s legal obligations in certifying election results. Section 96 requires the Chief Election Officer to ascertain the result of the election based on verified votes and prepare a report in both manual and electronic form, which then becomes the basis upon which the Commission declares and publishes the results under Section 99.
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.”
Opposition-nominated Commissioners have repeatedly argued that GECOM bypassed these stages, moving directly to gazette the results on 16 September 2025. Even that gazette contained glaring errors, including identical vote totals of 9,938 for the PPP/C in both Regions 9 and 10. The official declaration, signed by Chief Election Officer Vishnu Persaud, now raises serious questions about whether GECOM complied with Sections 96 and 99, both designed to guarantee accuracy and transparency in the final results.
Lall argued that the UNDP’s posture, which focused on systems functioning, ignored these deeper failures. He wrote that “the human systems guiding GECOM forward can’t agree on most things of substance, but GECOM’s nonhuman systems performed well,” a contradiction he said the report simply ignored. He again pointed to the absence of biometric voter verification and the failure to complete house-to-house registration, reforms sought for years by various groups to prevent impersonation and eliminate outdated data on the voters list.
The social commentator questioned what the UNDP chose to observe, saying its observers focused on election day rather than the pre-election period when most voter concerns emerge. “They saw elections as that day unfolded around the polling stations. Peaceful and calm,” he wrote, arguing that this view misses the lived reality of many Guyanese.
Lall also emphasised GECOM’s longstanding reputational problems, writing that “GECOM enjoys one of the worst reputations in Guyana; probably the worst,” a sentiment that aligns with longstanding public concerns about political influence, transparency, and structural imbalance. Despite decades of recommendations from international observer groups, substantial reforms remain unimplemented. Lall said the UNDP’s glowing conclusion required “a lot of turning away and pretending not to see what was begging to be seen.”
He further noted that the UNDP statement contained no discussion of the system’s remaining weaknesses, no assessment of what failed, and no acknowledgement of outstanding reforms that continue to undermine credibility. Lall argued that serious technical evaluations must present a balance of strengths and shortcomings, and that the UNDP’s omission was especially troubling when placed alongside the European Union’s findings and what he described as the President’s defensive posture.
The commentator linked the tone of the UNDP report to the broader geopolitical interests surrounding Guyana’s emergence as a major oil producer. “Foreigners issue full-toothed recognition. Colleges and varied groups line up to honor with doctorates and embraces. Oil makes many things possible,” he wrote, suggesting that external incentives may influence how organisations frame their assessments.
He warned that Guyanese have seen “quid pro quos in the making,” questioning whether any outside entity would prioritise truth-telling over strategic interests. He said the UNDP “did some damage to the credibility of observer missions” and ultimately “embarrassed itself with what it cooked, then served to Guyanese.”
Although the 2025 election results have been finalised and the country is moving on, Lall insisted that citizens remain uneasy. Drawing a comparison with the sharecroppers of the Jim Crow era, he argued that many Guyanese may feel they must continue with daily life while sensing that they have been disadvantaged. “Those who didn’t possess the skills to know, possessed the instincts to sense that they were the victims of swindles, hustles,” he wrote, adding that the UNDP’s overly optimistic conclusion does not reflect the national mood.
Lall ended with the view that the UNDP disconnected itself from Guyana’s reality. His critique has sharpened ongoing debates about the accuracy and independence of international observer assessments and has underscored the unresolved questions surrounding the credibility of Guyana’s 2025 election process.
