By Mark DaCosta- A significant legal battle is unfolding in our country concerning the election of the Chairman of the Region 10 Regional Democratic Council (RDC), highlighting critical issues related to democratic processes and governance.
On October 10, 2025, an election held to determine the Chairman resulted in a tie between two candidates, Mr. Mark Goring and Mr. Dominique Blair, both of whom received an equal number of votes. In a turn of events that has raised eyebrows across Guyana, the Clerk of Council, Mr. Dwight John, decided to suspend the election process, claiming that a minister would need to intervene and cast a deciding vote. This action has sparked protest from nine elected councillors who are taking legal steps to challenge what they describe as a blatant disregard for the statutory processes enshrined in our electoral laws. In other words, the Clerk of Council wants to involve the minister and let the minister have the final say in a matter over which central government has no statutory power.
The Local Democratic Organs Act, specifically Section 20, outlines a clear procedure for handling tie votes in council elections. The law stipulates a multi-tiered voting process designed to ensure that the council itself has the final say in electing its Chairman. Following any initial tie, the Clerk is mandated to declare the tied candidates for a second round of voting. Should that round also result in a tie, a third round is to be held. If a tie persists after the third round, the law mandates a more detailed process, involving proportional representation calculations to determine the Chairman based on the weighted votes of councillors.
The legal framework is in place to uphold democracy within our local governance, so the suspension of the voting process raised serious concerns among the affected councillors. They argue that Mr. John’s actions contradict the legal obligations placed upon him and undermine the principles of self-governance in our council. The letter from the councillors’ attorney, Dhurjon Chambers, plainly states: “You are hereby advised that your suspension of the election process… is unlawful.” A recording of Mr. John has surfaced, wherein he states, “the Minister has to make a ‘deliberation’ a ‘pronouncement’ and ‘her casting vote’,” reflecting a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law that could potentially lead our democratic processes towards perilous ground.
As if to add salt to the wounds, the reluctance of officials to adhere to our legal framework raises questions about the commitment to genuine representation and the health of our governance structures. The very principle of local democracy is at stake, as the reliance on a minister’s vote contradicts the essence of what it means to be governed by elected representatives. This situation exemplifies the dangers of political interference and highlights a troubling trend in our nation’s political landscape.
The notion that a ministerial decision is required to resolve a process intended to be managed internally by the council contradicts the core tenet of representative governance. By placing such power in the hands of a higher authority, voters could be left questioning the integrity of their elections and the rationale behind the elevated government structure. For many citizens, the idea that their voices could be overshadowed by political manoeuvring is a deeply unsettling prospect.
Critics have pointed out that this event could represent a larger, more systemic issue within our political apparatus. The actions of Mr. John are not just an isolated incident but part of a worrying narrative that illustrates a disregard for established legal frameworks in favour of political expediency. This undermines the very foundation of democracy — a system that must be defended and preserved to ensure local governance reflects the will of the populace, rather than yielding to the whims of external political forces.
As this legal battle unfolds, the councillors, led by Goring, aim to compel the Clerk to adhere to the necessary voting procedures that ensure the council itself decides on its leadership without undue external influence. In their legal notice, they are armed with a clear and potent argument based on statutory interpretation that seeks to affirm the procedures of our local democratic processes as they stand. This unfolding drama should serve as a wake-up call for all citizens to remain vigilant and engaged with local governance structures, especially as the stakes have never been higher.
Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have serious implications for the balance of power within our democratic institutions. It is essential for the integrity of our elections that the procedures are followed as intended, safeguarding the principles of fairness, accountability, and local self-governance. The actions taken by the councillors in response to this unlawful suspension will reflect their commitment to uphold democratic integrity, standing as a crucial test for our nation’s political resilience. As we watch this story develop, the call for transparency and adherence to the rule of law becomes paramount in our struggle to preserve the sanctity of democracy in Guyana.
