Nearly a Year Later, GECOM Yet to Complete Key Election Requirement

Almost a year after the September 2025 General and Regional Elections and despite the results being gazetted, questions continue to surround whether the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has completed a critical legal requirement necessary to formally determine the outcome of the polls.

At issue is compliance with Sections 96 and 98 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), provisions that govern the final calculation, certification and declaration of election results, including the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and Regional Democratic Councils.

The issue is significant because the process does not merely determine who forms the government. It establishes whether the distribution of parliamentary and regional seats was based on properly calculated and certified valid votes.

Opposition-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander has repeatedly raised concerns about what he describes as GECOM’s failure to complete these statutory requirements.

Section 96(1) of the Representation of the People Act states:

“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 98 further provides:

“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 has repeatedly argued that these provisions are statutory safeguards intended to ensure that votes are properly verified and translated into determining the parliamentary and regional representation before the electoral process is deemed complete.

According to Alexander, the Chief Election Officer is required to produce a detailed report showing the votes allocated to each contesting party. That report must then be reviewed by the Commission before the final results are formally ascertained.

The responsibility for ensuring that this process is completed ultimately rests with the Elections Commission itself, chaired by retired Justice Claudette Singh. The Commission, comprising government-nominated and opposition-nominated commissioners under the chairmanship of Justice Singh, is required to examine the Chief Election Officer’s calculations, resolve any discrepancies and formally conclude the tabulation and certification exercise contemplated by the Representation of the People Act.

Alexander maintains that this exercise was never completed, despite the results being gazetted and a government being sworn into office.

The report determines not only which party forms the Executive, but also how the 65 seats in the National Assembly and seats in the Regional Democratic Councils are allocated.

In effect, it is the mechanism that converts votes into political power.

Concerns have been raised that by proceeding to the gazetting of results without first completing the certification process, GECOM may have bypassed one of the most important safeguards built into the electoral system.

The concerns have been amplified by repeated claims from We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) leader Azruddin Mohamed, who has consistently maintained that the elections were rigged.

While no court has overturned the election outcome and GECOM declared the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) the winner,  unresolved questions surrounding vote tabulation and seat allocation continue to undermine public confidence.

For election observers and governance analysts, the issue extends beyond which party won the elections.

The credibility of any electoral process depends not only on ballots being cast and counted but also on strict compliance with the legal procedures that validate those votes and translate them into seats.

The controversy has also revived memories of the 2011 elections, when Alexander publicly challenged calculations prepared by then Chief Election Officer Gocool Boodhoo.

According to reports, Boodhoo altered the formula used to allocate seats, resulting in a parliamentary seat being assigned to the PPP that should have gone to the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). The discrepancy was detected and corrected, preserving the opposition’s majority in the National Assembly.

That episode is frequently cited as evidence that the certification process cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality.

The stakes today are arguably even higher.

In 2011, the PPP/C retained office with 32 seats but lost its parliamentary majority. APNU secured 26 seats and the Alliance for Change (AFC) seven, giving the combined opposition a one-seat majority.

In 2015, the APNU+AFC coalition won 33 seats and formed the government, while the PPP/C secured 32 seats.

In 2020, the PPP/C returned to office with 33 seats, APNU+AFC won 31 seats and the ANUG-LJP-TNM joinder list secured one seat.

The 2025 election produced a markedly different outcome. The PPP/C increased its representation to 36 seats, WIN emerged as the Official Opposition with 16 seats, APNU secured 12 seats and the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) won one seat.

For three consecutive election cycles spanning 2011, 2015 and 2020, the PPP/C’s parliamentary strength remained remarkably stable, fluctuating between 32 and 33 seats. The increase to 36 seats in 2025 therefore represents the party’s largest parliamentary majority in more than a decade.

While election outcomes can change significantly between cycles, some observers contend that the absence of a completed certification process under Sections 96 and 98 leaves unanswered questions about the calculations used to convert votes into parliamentary seats.

With nearly a year having passed since the elections, Alexander and others who have raised concerns argue that the continued absence of a completed certification exercise undermines confidence in the electoral system and raises serious questions about adherence to the Representation of the People Act.

Ultimately, the issue is not merely whether votes were counted. It is whether the legal process designed to verify those votes, allocate seats and certify the final outcome was fully completed.

Until that question is conclusively answered, concerns about the transparency and credibility of the electoral process are unlikely to disappear.