By Timothy Hendricks- As Guyana navigates the aftershocks of its September 1, 2025, General and Regional elections, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) finds itself mired in a constitutional quagmire that threatens to paralyse the very institution tasked with safeguarding democracy. At the heart of this impasse is a seismic shift in the opposition landscape: the rise of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) Party, led by Azruddin Mohamed, which clinched 16 seats in the National Assembly, eclipsing the beleaguered A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) coalition’s diminished tally of 12.
With the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) dominating at 36 seats, WIN’s emergence as the new main opposition demands a reconfiguration of GECOM’s opposition-nominated commissioners. Yet, the current trio – Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin, and Desmond Trotman, all APNU/AFC stalwarts – clings to their posts, invoking a interpretation of the Constitution to argue for “commissioners for life.” This stance has offended and interpreted as defying the spirit of representational democracy, and reeks of the same electoral intransigence that has haunted Guyana’s politics for decades.
The call for resignation is unambiguous and rooted in constitutional logic some have argued. Azruddin Mohamed, poised to assume the mantle of Leader of the Opposition once Parliament convenes, has urged the incumbents to step aside “ASAP” to allow his nominees to take their place. “They should do the honourable thing and resign,” Mohamed declared at a September press conference, emphasising that GECOM’s composition must mirror the electorate’s will. This is no mere procedural nicety; it is a democratic imperative.
The Constitution of Guyana, as amended, facilitates such transitions through Article 161(3)(b), which stipulates that three commissioners shall be appointed by the President “acting on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition after he has meaningfully consulted the non-governmental opposition parties represented in the National Assembly.” This provision underscores the representational nature of these appointments: they are not personal fiefdoms but placeholders for the current opposition configuration. When electoral fortunes shift – as they did dramatically in 2025, with WIN flipping APNU/AFC strongholds like Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice)—so too must the Commission’s makeup to reflect that shift.
Complementing this is Article 225, which governs the tenure and removal of public officials, including GECOM commissioners. While Article 225(2) allows removal only for inability to perform functions due to infirmity of body or mind, or for misbehaviour, it does not enshrine lifetime appointments.
Legal scholars like University of Guyana Senior Lecturer Neville Bissember have lambasted the “for life” notion as a “myopic approach,” arguing that the framers intended flexibility for the appointing authority – the sitting Leader of the Opposition – to retain or replace nominees as political realities evolve. “A commonsense interpretation alone of the representational character of GECOM Commissioners requires that the new Leader of the Opposition enjoys the flexibility to either retain existing Commissioners or replace them,” Bissember wrote, warning that entrenching outdated appointees undermines Article 161’s core intent.
Indeed, GECOM Chairperson (Ret’d) Justice Claudette Singh has herself invoked Article 161(3)(b) to halt Commission business until Mohamed’s nominees are in place, creating a deadlock that exposes the absurdity of the status quo.
The APNU/AFC commissioners’ resistance is legally tenuous; smacks of hypocrisy, especially from Vincent Alexander, the Commission’s most vocal defender of permanence. Alexander has repeatedly asserted that commissioners “hold their positions with legal protection” and can only vacate through resignation, death, or incapacity – effectively positioning himself as a fixture until doomsday. This “commissioners for life” mantra, echoed by APNU Leader Aubrey Norton, who insists there is “no law to move them,” ignores the Constitution’s emphasis on consultation and adaptation.
It also overlooks the representational vacuum it creates: why should APNU/AFC commissioners, representing a mere 12 seats, dictate electoral oversight for an opposition now led by WIN’s 16? Such entrenchment fosters the very bias Norton decried post-election, when he lamented a “biased” Commission under a “biased” chair. If GECOM is to rebuild credibility – scarred as it is by the 2020 rigging scandal – lifetime sinecures must be rejected outright. They breed stagnation, erode public confidence, and invite the partisan gridlock that has seen opposition commissioners walk out of meetings, stalling preparations for future polls.
This irony deepens when one examines the APNU’s internal house of cards, laid bare at the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) 22nd Biennial Delegates Congress in June 2024. There, Vincent Alexander served as Returning Officer for the leadership vote, presiding over a process marred by allegations of irregularities that eerily mirror the national electoral distrust the opposition so often weaponises.
Roysdale Forde, S.C., a prominent PNCR MP and leadership contender, penned a scathing letter to Alexander highlighting “concerns about the integrity of the electoral process,” particularly in delegate voting procedures. Forde cited unresolved queries on the membership register, the abrupt disbanding of the North American Congress Directorate (perceived as a Forde stronghold), and a lack of transparency in accreditation – issues that prompted both Forde and fellow challenger Amanza Walton-Desir to withdraw on the eve of voting. Alexander, in his dual role as arbiter, largely dismissed these red flags, declaring the race unopposed and tallying Aubrey Norton 1,040 votes out of 1,066 eligible delegates.
The fallout was predictable: Norton’s unchallenged reelection as PNCR Leader – and by extension, APNU/AFC’s presidential candidate – proved disastrous. In the 2025 elections, the coalition hemorrhaged support, plummeting from 31 seats in 2020 to 12, as WIN siphoned off disaffected voters in traditional APNU strongholds. Polling data showed WIN surging with 109,075 votes to APNU/AFC’s 77,988, flipping seats in Regions 7 and 10 and ceding ground to smaller players like the Forward Guyana Movement (1 seat). Norton’s underperformance was not just a tactical blunder; it was a direct consequence of a troubled internal process that sidelined capable challengers.
Charity and integrity, as the adage goes, begin at home. Alexander’s selective vigilance – demanding flawless national elections while brushing off internal party flaws – exposes a double standard. One cannot proclaim, as APNU/AFC commissioners do, that a returning officer’s duty is merely “to count votes” in party polls yet insist on ironclad scrutiny for national ones.
Had Alexander heeded party members’ concerns, subjecting the Congress to the rigorous audits the Opposition demands of GECOM, Norton might have faced a genuine contest. A more adept leader could have stemmed the tide, sustaining those 31 seats or even clinching victory and installing Alexander’s patrons in government. Instead, the 2025 rout has left APNU/AFC marginalised, with Alexander’s GECOM perch now a relic of irrelevance – poetic justice, indeed, for a man who counted votes to preserve power but failed to count the cost of his own blindness.
In this light, the path forward is clear: the APNU/AFC commissioners must resign, honouring Article 161’s call for fresh representation. WIN, as Guyana’s new opposition vanguard, deserves its voice at GECOM, ensuring the Commission reflects the diverse mandate of September 1. Constitutional reform, long overdue, should abolish any whiff of lifetime tenure, mandating term limits and mandatory rotations post-election to prevent entrenchment. Until then, Guyana’s democracy hangs in the balance – not by credible ballots cast, and credible governance alone, but by the willingness of those who count them to yield the floor. The people have spoken; now, the gatekeepers must listen.
