Opposition-nominated Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Commissioner Vincent Alexander has intensified his challenge to Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh, arguing that if she relies on the Constitution to question the status of the existing Opposition-appointed commissioners, she must apply the same constitutional reasoning to her own appointment and resign.
In a letter to the editor published in Village Voice News on Thursday, November 12, Alexander responded to GECOM’s November 10 statement defending Singh’s position on the Commission’s composition and rejecting his description of the electoral body as “comatose”.
Alexander made two principal arguments, both centred on the interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing appointments to the Commission and the authority of its Chairperson.
He first challenged Singh’s reliance on Article 161(3)(b), which governs the appointment of the three Opposition-nominated commissioners. He argued that the Chairperson should also consider Article 161(2), which provides for her appointment by the President from a list of six persons submitted by the Leader of the Opposition following meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.
Alexander said the constitutional consultation requirement applies to both the Chairperson’s appointment and those of the Opposition-nominated commissioners.
“Her appointment similar to that of the Opposition Appointed Commissioners has its origin with the Leader of the Opposition ‘after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly’.”
Applying what he described as the same constitutional interpretation, Alexander argued that Singh should relinquish her position.
“Claudette Singh should therefore, based on her own interpretation of the Constitution, resign since the provision providing for the appointment of the commissioners is applicable mutatis mutandis to the appointment of the chair.”
The Latin expression mutatis mutandis means that a provision applies with the necessary changes or adjustments.
Questions Chairperson’s authority to act for Commission
Alexander’s second argument concerns the distinction between the Commission itself and its administrative Secretariat, particularly the Chairperson’s authority to represent GECOM while the commissioners have not been meeting.
He described the Chairperson as the “first amongst equals” and maintained that the administration is merely the executing arm of the Commission, rather than a substitute for the constitutional body.
His argument follows controversy over Singh’s November 5 meeting with the Heads of Mission of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France and the European Union, alongside Chief Election Officer Vishnu Persaud.
Alexander questioned the authority under which the meeting was held, given that the full Commission has not convened since September 2025.
In his latest letter, he argued that meetings involving the Chairperson ostensibly represent the Commission, rather than the Secretariat.
“Paradoxically, she has decommissioned the Commission, pending its re-constituting, and at the same time seeks to act on its behalf as if the Administration, of which the Chair is not as part, is GECOM.”
He concluded that the Commission remained in crisis because of the Chairperson’s actions, adding that the factors informing her decisions were still unanswered.
“GECOM is comatose and in crisis, largely due to the actions of the Chair. What misinforms and/or motivates her actions may well be the elephant in the room.”
GECOM defends Chairperson’s position
In its November 10 statement, GECOM acknowledged that the commissioners had not met since September 2025, but rejected Alexander’s assertion that the institution had ceased functioning.
The Commission said its Secretariat continued to perform administrative and statutory responsibilities, including registration services and the maintenance of registration records. It nevertheless conceded that the absence of meetings had constrained matters requiring collective deliberation and approval.
GECOM also maintained that the November 5 diplomatic meeting was requested by the five Heads of Mission and that Singh did not require prior approval from individual commissioners to engage stakeholders in the discharge of her responsibilities. It said the Chief Election Officer participated to provide technical and administrative information on operational matters.
On the composition dispute, GECOM said Singh’s position was guided by Article 161(3)(b) and the need to ensure that the Commission operates in accordance with the constitutional arrangements. It added that the issue of Opposition representation remained unresolved among the Opposition Parliamentary Parties.
The dispute follows the emergence of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) as the largest Opposition party after the 2025 General and Regional Elections and the subsequent election of its leader, Azruddin Mohamed, as Leader of the Opposition. Mohamed has proposed three new commissioners to replace the existing Opposition-nominated members, but the appointments have not been finalised.
GECOM has suggested that legislative intervention, if considered necessary by the relevant constitutional authorities, could help resolve the outstanding issue.
Alexander’s latest intervention adds another dimension to the impasse, challenging not only the Chairperson’s interpretation of the constitutional appointment provisions but also the extent of her authority to act on behalf of a Commission that has been unable to meet for more than a year.
