Six months after Guyana’s General and Regional Elections, which were held on September 1, 2025, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) remains in breach of constitutional and statutory requirements governing the declaration of results, according to opposition-nominated commissioner Vincent Alexander, raising serious questions about the legal finality of the electoral process and the integrity of democratic governance.
In a letter published in today’s Village Voice News, Alexander—one of the three opposition-nominated commissioners on GECOM—argued that persistent non-adherence to the Constitution by the Government of Guyana and state agencies has placed the country in dangerous territory. “Given the non-adherence to the provisions of the Constitution by the Government of Guyana and state agencies, the Government may well be defined as a rogue government and the State as one that is failing,” he wrote.
Alexander identified GECOM as a central example of what he described as institutional breakdown, stating that since September 7, 2025 the Commission has been “deliberately comatose through the Chairperson [ret’d Justice Claudette Singh],” while the administration, “with her fiat has usurped the authority of the Commission.”
At the heart of his complaint are the procedures used to finalise election results. For the first time in Guyana’s electoral history, results were gazetted without adherence to the mandatory legal steps required for their declaration. Alexander reminds that there were no public declarations prior to gazetting and, in the case of the regional elections, no presentation of reports to the Commission as required by law.
He cited Section 96(2) of the Representation of the People Act, which provides that “The Chief Election Officer shall prepare a report manually and in electronic form… which shall be the basis for the Commission to declare and publish the election results under Section 99.” Section 99 further requires that “the Commission shall publicly declare the results of the election and shall cause to be published in the Gazette a notification thereof.”
According to Alexander, “the results were gazetted without the prior public declaration, and in the instance of the regional elections the manual and electronic reports were never prepared for ‘the benefit of the Commission’,” despite both being “mandated as prerequisites for ‘the declaration and publication of the results’.”
He alleged that this pattern of irregular conduct has persisted in multiple forms. Among them, he said the Chairperson relied on Article 161 of the Constitution to argue that the Commission was not duly constituted, yet “she remained in situ,” while facilitating actions that are legally reserved for the full Commission. These included the preparation and submission of GECOM’s 2026 budgetary estimates and decisions on staffing matters involving “large financial outlays,” which he argued should flow from a Commission-approved programme of work.
Alexander also pointed to the failure to conduct a statutory post-election evaluation, noting that “statutory activities, such as the evaluation of the election have not been undertaken, yet decisions which should be outputs of an evaluation have been made and executed.”
He further raised concerns about procedural violations in the conduct of Commission meetings, including one that was “summoned and aborted in conflict with the constitutional provision for meetings,” which requires that a meeting that is not quorate be reconvened within 48 hours.
In addition, Alexander said there has been “no known attention” paid to the recommendations of election observer missions or to outstanding agenda items in the preparation of GECOM’s annual budget and work programme, all undertaken without the input or approval of the Commission.
The situation, if unresolved, carries potentially far-reaching implications. Legal analysts note that failures to comply with constitutionally mandated procedures could expose electoral outcomes to legal challenge, weaken public confidence in the electoral system, and complicate future elections administered by the same institutional framework.
Prolonged paralysis at GECOM could also stall much-needed electoral reforms and further erode the credibility of Guyana’s democratic institutions at a time when political stability is critical. With no public indication of when the statutory defects will be corrected, the Commission’s continued inaction places the country in uncharted constitutional territory.
For the first time in Guyana’s electoral history, core legal requirements for declaring election results remain unmet months after polling day, raising the risk of legal uncertainty and prolonged contestation. If left unresolved, the situation threatens to weaken public trust in the independence and authority of the elections body, undermine democratic stability, and establish a dangerous precedent that could reshape how future elections are conducted, challenged, and ultimately legitimised.
See full letter below:
Dear Editor,
Given the non-adherence to the provisions of the Constitution by the Government of Guyana and state agencies, the Government may well be defined as a rogue government and the State as one that is failing given the rogue nature of the Government and agencies of the State.
One such agency is the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). As of September 7, 2025 the Commission has been deliberately comatose through the Chairperson, but the Administration with her fiat has usurped the authority of the Commission.
This all began with the gazetting of the results of the elections without the mandatory requisite public declarations, and in the instance of the regional elections, the presentation of the results to the Commission, in keeping with the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, which specifies that “The Chief Election Officer shall prepare a report manually and in electronic form in terms of section 99 for the benefit of the Commission, which shall be the basis for the Commission to declare and publish the election results under Section 99”, which section states that “the Commission shall publicly declare the results of the election and shall cause to be published in the Gazette a notification thereof”.
But, the results were gazetted without the prior public declaration, and in the instance of the regional elections the manual and electronic reports were never prepared for “the benefit of the Commission” both of the aforementioned are mandated as prerequisites for ‘the declaration and publication of the results’.
This rogue behaviour has persisted under different guises. First, the Chairperson referenced Article 161 of the Constitution in contending that the Commission was not duly constituted, yet she remained in situ, contrary to her own interpretation of the manner in which the Commission ought to be constituted.
Worse yet, she facilitated actions that are the preserve of the Commission a la the preparation and submission of the budgetary estimates for 2026, which should provide for the year`s programme of work, which should be initiated and finalized by the Commission; and the determination of staff matters that are the purview of the Commission, including large financial outlays; inter alia.
Second, statutory activities, such as the evaluation of the election have not been undertaken, yet decisions which should be outputs of an evaluation have been made and executed. Third, a meeting was summoned and aborted in conflict with the constitutional provision for meetings, which when summoned and not quorate should to be convened 48 hours thereafter.
Finally, no known attention has been paid to the myriad recommendations of the observer missions and outstanding agenda matters, in the preparation of the budget/annual work programme, in the absence of the Commission`s input.
All of the aforementioned are but a glimpse of the usurpation taking place at GECOM under the rogue regime, and comatose state that has befallen GECOM, very much mirroring the manner of conduct of the affairs of the State, a la the Legislature`s similar state of comatose.
Yours,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
