A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) is demanding that Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh, explain the legal basis for the suspension of meetings of the Commission, arguing that GECOM’s own recent statements raise questions about the continued exclusion of its commissioners from collective decision-making.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, November 11, APNU said GECOM’s acknowledgement that legislative intervention may be necessary to resolve the outstanding issue of Opposition representation on the Commission was significant.
The party argued that if legislation is required to change the Commission’s composition, then the existing legal arrangements remain in force and the sitting commissioners are entitled to continue serving.
That position, APNU said, raises a fundamental question for Singh:
“If the Commissioners remain lawfully in office, what legal basis did she have to suspend meetings of the Commission?”
APNU said it believed there was no legal basis for the suspension and characterised the decision as political rather than legal. It commended Opposition Commissioner Vincent Alexander for bringing the issue into public focus.
What Article 161(3)(b) says
The dispute centres partly on Article 161(3)(b) of the Constitution, which establishes the process for appointing the three Opposition-nominated members of GECOM.
Article 161 provides for a seven-member Commission: a Chairperson and six other members. Of those six, three are appointed by the President acting in his or her own deliberate judgment, while the other three are appointed by the President in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.
Article 161(3)(b) states that the three Opposition-nominated members are to be appointed by the President:
“acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition tendered after meaningful consultation with non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.”
In practical terms, this means the Leader of the Opposition must consult the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly before advising the President on the three appointments. The President then makes the appointments in accordance with that advice.
The provision is particularly relevant given the changed composition of the Opposition in the National Assembly following the 2025 General and Regional Elections. We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) emerged as the largest opposition party with 16 seats, followed by APNU with 12 and the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) with one.
WIN leader Azruddin Mohamed was subsequently elected Leader of the Opposition in January 2026, receiving the support of WIN and FGM parliamentarians.
Following consultations with the opposition parties, Mohamed submitted the names of three proposed commissioners to President Irfaan Ali: Attorneys Roysdale Forde S.C, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva. The recommendations were intended to replace the three Opposition-nominated commissioners currently serving on GECOM: Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin and Desmond Trotman.
The proposed appointments have not been finalised, leaving the question of Opposition representation unresolved.
Article 161(3)(b) establishes the appointment process, but it does not expressly state that GECOM must suspend meetings while political parties resolve disagreements over representation. Nor does the provision itself settle the separate legal question of whether the existing commissioners can continue serving until replacements are appointed.
That distinction is central to the questions APNU is directing at the GECOM Chair.
GECOM acknowledges more than a year without meetings
The party’s statement follows GECOM’s November 10 response to concerns raised by Alexander, who had questioned the Commission’s prolonged inactivity and called for the matter to be addressed.
GECOM acknowledged that the commissioners have not met since September 2025, following the conclusion of the General and Regional Elections.
The Commission nevertheless rejected the suggestion that the institution had ceased functioning, maintaining that its Secretariat continued to carry out administrative and statutory responsibilities, including registration services and the maintenance of registration records.
GECOM conceded, however, that the absence of meetings had restricted its ability to consider and approve matters requiring collective deliberation.
“Although the absence of Commission meetings has undoubtedly constrained the consideration and determination of matters requiring the Commission’s collective deliberation and approval,” GECOM stated, it was “wholly inaccurate to suggest that GECOM, as an institution, has ceased functioning.”
On the question of its composition, GECOM said Singh’s position was guided by Article 161(3)(b). It explained that following the 2025 elections and the emergence of a new Leader of the Opposition, there was an expectation that the appointment of Opposition representatives would be addressed.
However, despite the new parliamentary configuration, the matter remains unresolved among the Opposition Parliamentary Parties.
The Commission also indicated that legislative attention, if considered necessary by the relevant constitutional authorities, could provide a means of bringing clarity and resolving the outstanding matter. GECOM did not announce a date for the resumption of meetings.
Electoral reform remains a concern
The prolonged absence of Commission meetings has implications for the consideration of several matters requiring collective decisions, including electoral reform and preparations for future elections.
APNU specifically highlighted the delayed introduction of biometric voter verification, arguing that the issue must be returned to the Commission’s agenda well ahead of the 2030 General and Regional Elections.
Biometric verification has been a recurring issue in discussions about strengthening the integrity of Guyana’s electoral process. Its introduction would require decisions on the appropriate legal, technical and administrative arrangements.
The party warned that continued suspension of meetings prevents commissioners from collectively addressing these and other important electoral matters.
APNU is therefore calling on Singh to:
- Publicly explain the legal basis, if any, for suspending meetings of the Commission;
- Resume statutory meetings of the full Commission without delay; and
- Restore electoral reform, including biometric verification, to the Commission’s agenda well ahead of 2030.
“Free and fair elections depend on a Commission that functions openly and lawfully,” APNU said, adding that it would continue to hold GECOM to that standard on behalf of every Guyanese voter.
The constitutional question at the heart of the dispute remains whether the unresolved process for appointing Opposition-nominated commissioners provides sufficient grounds to prevent the existing Commission from meeting. Article 161(3)(b) sets out the appointment procedure, but does not expressly direct that meetings be suspended because of a disagreement over Opposition representation.
Whether Singh’s decision was legally justified requires consideration of the full constitutional and legal framework, as well as the circumstances surrounding the appointments.
Until the matter is resolved, GECOM’s collective decision-making remains stalled, leaving questions about electoral reform, institutional accountability and preparations for future elections awaiting the Commission’s attention.
