The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is once again under national scrutiny after Opposition-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander accused Chairperson, Ret’d Justice Claudette Singh, of dereliction of duty and failing to comply with the country’s electoral laws governing the declaration of election results.
The accusations stem from the General and Regional Elections held on September 1, 2025, which, per GECOM’s declaration, produced a 65-seat National Assembly divided between the governing People’s Progressive Party (PPP) with 36 seats, and the Opposition — comprising We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) with 16, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) with 12, and the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) with one.
In a pointed letter to the press, Alexander charged that Justice Singh has “skirted and ignored” the Opposition Commissioners’ central accusation — that she never publicly declared the results of those elections, nor presented the regional election results to the full Commission as required by Sections 96 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), Cap 1:03.
“She skirts or ignores our accusation-that she never publicly declared the results of the General and Regional elections; and never presented the results of the regional elections to the Commission as the law requires,” Alexander wrote, daring the Chair to refute his claim.
Legal Mandates and Alleged Breach
Section 96 of ROPA stipulates that “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.”
It further provides that the CEO must prepare a report, in both manual and electronic form, for the benefit of the Commission, which then serves as “the basis for the Commission to declare and publish the election results under section 99.”
Section 99, in turn, mandates that “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.”
According to Alexander, none of these statutory requirements were satisfied.
Justice Singh’s contention that the Commission is not properly constituted cannot justify her clear dereliction of duty, he asserted. “In any circumstance, the Commission’s life could not have come to an end before the results were declared.”
Justice Singh, however, has reportedly argued that the configuration of the incoming National Assembly — particularly with the potential change of new Leader of the Opposition — has complicated the process. Given WIN has secured the most seat in the Opposition, it is highly likely its presidential candidate, Azruddin Mohamed would be elected the Leader
But legal observers say this justification cannot stand.
“The Chairperson’s argument ignores the fact that the proper declaration of election results has historically preceded the swearing-in of the new government, members of the National Assembly, and Regional Democratic Councils,” a lawyer told Village Voice News on the condition of anonymity. “It is not a chicken-and-egg situation — it is simple, linear, and straightforward. GECOM can resolve this matter in a civil manner without the court’s intervention.”
‘A Lawless Slide’ — Analysts Warn of Dangerous Precedent
One political analyst, speaking to this publication, described the situation as “deeply troubling,” warning that GECOM is “sliding down a lawless slope.”
“This is another form of rigging,” the analyst said bluntly. “GECOM seems to be struggling to reconcile the votes awarded to parties with the Statements of Polls, especially where totals were given but not broken down between the General and Regional ballots.”
The analyst added that the PPP, which emerged as the ruling party from the September 1, 2025 elections, has little incentive to push for compliance with the law.
“The PPP benefits from the status quo,” the analyst said. “It is not in its interest to demand transparency or rectification of this anomaly.”
The opposition, meanwhile, despite controlling nearly half the Assembly, has been “distracted by internal wrangling,” the analyst lamented.
“Instead of demanding strict adherence to the Representation of the People Act,” the source continued, “they’re fighting over who should represent them on the Commission and how it should be composed — ignoring the immediate matter of compliance with the law.”
Muted Public and International Response
The controversy has received muted attention from both the political class and civil society — a silence the source describes as “a dereliction of civic duty.”
“The society, including the very parties who now sit in Parliament and the Regional Democratic Councils, has ignored a blatant breach of the law,” the analyst said.
Observers note that international electoral missions, which monitored the 2025 polls, should be paying attention to the Commission’s failure to publish results in accordance with Sections 96 and 99. They are hoping these observers have “not closed their notebooks and moved on.”
The Unresolved Question
Sections 96 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act are unambiguous: the Chief Election Officer must tabulate the valid votes and submit a report to the Commission; the Commission must, in turn, publicly declare and Gazette those results within fifteen days.
That process (the submission of the results to the commission) — the legal heartbeat of the country’s democracy — remains incomplete.
Equally troubling is the Opposition’s silence in the face of this breach. Their failure to ensure that Chief Election Officer Vishnu Persaud performs his statutory duty amounts to a crying shame and an abdication of their responsibility to the voters and constituencies they claim to represent.
If the Commission’s leadership continues to deflect responsibility while the Opposition looks the other way, GECOM risks more than political controversy — it risks the erosion of the rule of law itself. What began as a procedural lapse has now become a constitutional question that neither expediency nor partisan comfort can lawfully bury.
