The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) stands at a dangerous crossroads. With the date for General and Regional Elections now declared, September 1, 2025, the Commission is entering its most sensitive and consequential phase.
Every decision made from this point forward must reinforce, not undermine, public trust in the electoral process. That is why the concerns raised by Alliance For Change (AFC) Leader Nigel Hughes must not be dismissed. They must be acted upon with urgency.
In his letter to GECOM Chairperson, Ret’d Justice Claudette Singh, Mr. Hughes raises what should be an undeniable truth: “The role of legal advisor to GECOM requires not only legal competence but unimpeachable neutrality.” He is absolutely right.
The idea that the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who serves as the Government’s chief legal officer and an openly partisan figure, would now advise the electoral commission on legal matters is, as Hughes correctly describes, “an unacceptable conflict.”
GECOM is a constitutional body tasked with ensuring free, fair, and impartial elections. That mandate is incompatible with receiving legal counsel from any figure within the Executive, much less one whose public conduct routinely displays political partiality.
The Village Voice News supports the AFC’s call for the immediate appointment of an independent, professionally qualified, and non-partisan legal advisor.
GECOM must take steps now to restore the public’s confidence in its independence and transparency. Failing to do so will only compound existing distrust surrounding issues such as the bloated voters list, the lack of progress on electoral reforms, and the troubling dismissal of former legal advisor Kurt Da Silva.
The publication registers its alarm at the circumstances surrounding Mr. Da Silva’s termination. A respected legal mind and former Judicial Counsel at the Caribbean Court of Justice, Da Silva was reportedly dismissed after presenting a legal position in a voter registration matter that may not have aligned with the preferences of GECOM’s leadership.
GECOM’s claim that his actions “severely eroded” trust is unconvincing and has given rise to legitimate fears that political pressure, not professional misjudgment, may have been the real motivation. If that is the case, then the independence of the Commission is already under serious threat.
What GECOM must understand- what the public must insist upon—is that our elections must not only be free and fair; they must be seen to be free and fair. That requires systems of accountability, independence from the Executive, and legal guidance untainted by political affiliation.
The time for hedging and hesitation has passed. If GECOM is to fulfill its constitutional duty with credibility and integrity, it must immediately desist from relying on the Attorney General for legal counsel and move to appoint an independent legal advisor. The standards of transparency and fairness Hughes calls for are not optional. They are essential.
As Mr. Hughes rightly stated: “The integrity of our electoral system must not be compromised.” GECOM must act now, and decisively, in the interest of the nation and democracy itself.
