Lawyer and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Law at the University of Guyana, Neville Bissember, argued in a letter published last September that the outcome of the 2025 General and Regional Elections requires a reconfiguration of opposition representation on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), contending that the emergence of a new parliamentary opposition majority has fundamentally altered the constitutional landscape governing appointments to the electoral body.
His intervention is relevant in light of recent action by Opposition Leader and leader of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), Azruddin Mohamed, who has formally initiated consultations with opposition parliamentary parties regarding the selection of opposition-nominated commissioners.
Mohamed recently wrote to Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and Chairman of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Aubrey Norton, and leader of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), Amanza Walton-Desir, requesting a meeting to discuss appointments to the Elections Commission.
In the correspondence, Mohamed floated the names of Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and attorneys-at-law Siand Durjon and Damien DaSilva as potential opposition nominees to serve on GECOM.
The consultations come amid growing debate over whether the three opposition-nominated commissioners currently serving on GECOM should continue in office following the emergence of a new opposition parliamentary majority led by WIN.
The development marks the first time in decades that the office of Leader of the Opposition is not held by a representative of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) or a coalition dominated by the PNCR, including A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC). As a result, questions have arisen as to whether the current opposition-appointed commissioners continue to reflect the parliamentary composition of the opposition.
In his September letter, Bissember said Guyana is experiencing a “seismic shift” in its political landscape, one that extends beyond Parliament and into the representation of non-governmental political parties on GECOM.
He criticised what he described as a narrow focus on the tenure protections afforded to commissioners under the Constitution, arguing that insufficient attention has been paid to the role of the appointing authority—the Leader of the Opposition.
While acknowledging the commonly held view that commissioners can only be removed for reasons such as misconduct, incapacity, or illness under Article 225(2) of the Constitution, Bissember maintained that it could not have been the intention of the Constitution’s framers for opposition commissioners to remain indefinitely in office when the individual who appointed them no longer holds the office of Leader of the Opposition.
He argued that the representational character of GECOM commissioners requires that a new Leader of the Opposition have the flexibility either to retain existing commissioners or replace them.
Bissember noted that for decades, opposition representation on GECOM was effectively shared within the framework established by the Carter Formula, under which the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and the then-main opposition People’s National Congress (PNC) dominated the nomination process.
According to him, the rise of a significant third political force and the resulting change in parliamentary representation have exposed constitutional questions that were never previously tested.
He questioned how commissioners selected through a process initiated by a former Leader of the Opposition could automatically be presumed to retain the confidence of a successor who now holds the constitutional authority to advise on such appointments.
“The results of the 2025 elections dictate that the parliamentary representation on the opposition benches between 2020 and 2025 … has now come to an end,” he wrote, arguing that the new parliamentary configuration involving WIN, APNU, and FGM should be reflected in GECOM’s opposition representation.
Bissember’s position is consistent with arguments he advanced earlier this year.
Speaking on the issue in February, he referred to Article 161 of the Constitution and argued that the process for appointing opposition-nominated members of GECOM is contingent upon meaningful consultation among the relevant political stakeholders.
He explained that while the President remains the appointing authority for all six commissioners, the three opposition nominees must emerge from a constitutionally prescribed consultative process.
“Article 161 of the Constitution talks about the election of the six members of the commission, three members to be appointed by the President; the President is always the appointing authority in this case. [And for the opposition] the appointment is made acting on the advice of the Opposition Leader tendered after meaningful consultation,” Bissember had stated.
He emphasised that the Constitution now provides a definition of “meaningful consultation,” requiring genuine engagement rather than a mere formality. According to him, the Leader of the Opposition is expected to consult with the non-governmental political parties represented in the opposition before submitting nominees for appointment.
The law lecturer also challenged claims that GECOM commissioners effectively enjoy lifetime tenure.
Pointing to Article 161(6), which incorporates provisions of Article 225 relating to constitutional office holders, Bissember said those provisions protect commissioners from arbitrary removal or suspension but do not prevent their replacement when the constitutional process requires new appointments.
“The question is… is Mr. Alexander being removed or suspended? Is Mr. Corbin being suspended? The answer is no,” Bissember argued. What has occurred is that “the constitutional procedure has run and their term of office has come to an end.”
In his latest contribution, Bissember proposed that Mohamed should formally indicate whether any of the current opposition commissioners continue to enjoy his confidence and communicate that position to the President and the GECOM Chairperson.
Should any commissioner no longer enjoy that confidence, the Opposition Leader should notify them in writing, thank them for their service, and advise the President and Chairperson accordingly. Any resulting vacancies, he said, should then be filled following meaningful consultations among the opposition parties represented in Parliament.
The debate is expected to intensify in the coming weeks as Mohamed’s consultations with APNU and FGM proceed and discussions continue over how the opposition’s changed parliamentary composition should be reflected within Guyana’s elections management body.
