Dear Editor,
In the news is the meeting between the Chairperson, and Chief Election Officer (CEO) of GECOM with the American, British, Canadian, French, and European Union Heads of Missions. This meeting places a comatose GECOM in the spotlight.
Imagine, GECOM as a commission has not met since September 17, 2025 due to the Chair’s refusal to convene a meeting of the Commission, however, out of the blue it is announced that the Chair and the CEO convened a meeting with the Heads of Diplomatic Missions to discuss matters pertaining to the conduct of elections in Guyana. This meeting raises three fundamental questions: what’s the authenticity of, and purpose for, such a meeting, and what, and from whom, action is required to de-comatose GECOM?
Those questions are posed against the following background: 1. The Chairperson of GECOM has singlehandedly frozen the operation of the Commission on the spurious ground that she is uncertain about the status of the Opposition appointed commissioners in view of the Leader of the Opposition’s contestation of their right to continue as commissioners as opposed to his right to appoint new commissioners. The Chair’s actual contention was “I am guided by Article 161 (3) (b) of the Constitution as to the composition of the Commission, which will be decided on the convening of Parliament”. Factually, she halted the operation of the Commission, and ostensibly argued that she awaited the convening of Parliament for the matter to be determined. Parliament has long since convened; not addressed the issue; and not been asked to do so by her, yet she maintains her posture and has not convened a meeting of the Commission.
2. What authority does she have to hold discussions with the Diplomatic Corps on behalf of a commission which has been decommissioned, albeit unilaterally and unlawfully, but de facto by virtue of her freezing its operations as of September, 2025, more so, to discuss matters that clearly fall within the purview of a constituted and sitting commission? Not only does it raise the question of who is she representing. It also raises the question of the substance of the discussion, since there would have been no meeting of minds by the Commission on the matters that could be addressed in a purposeful and meaningful meeting with external agencies, to wit diplomatic missions.
3. In that regard, it would seem injudicious for the delegation to have met with her, given her rogue status (her own application of the constitutional provision for the appointment of commissioners can also be applied to her), and their obligation to relate to legitimate state agencies or agents in the conduct of inter-state relations, which is what they have been accredited to do.
In that regard note should be taken of the following consequences of the actions of the Chair:
1. Facilitation of the submission of a budget that does not represent the meeting of minds of the Commission, the body constitutionally mandated to manage the affairs of GECOM, including the determination of the budgetary estimates for submission for parliamentary appropriation.
2. The undermining of the intended critical work of the Commission, to wit the evaluation of the conduct of the last elections; the operationalization of the right of prisoners, party elections officials, and offshore workers, among others, to vote.
3. The non-fulfilment of the commitment to implement additional elements of bio-metrics in the electoral system, to wit digital fingerprint identification, and the myriad of valid and pertinent recommendations which were made by the observer missions and acknowledged and accepted by the Commission and major stakeholders.
4. Stymieing the conduct of local government elections that are constitutionally due.
5. In-attention on the finalization of GECOM`s manuals on administration, finances and human resource management.
6. In-attention to the filling of critical vacancies, i.e. chief accountant, assistant chief election officer, deputy chief election officer, IT manager, et al; and
7. Her alleged contrived evasion of appearing in Court, in relation to the ongoing cases against elections officials.
GECOM is in a contrived state of crisis, and in need of judicial and or legislative intervention in relation to the standing of the commissioners including the chair. This crisis requires urgent attention, rather than the silence and countenance of the powers that be, including the Diplomatic Corps.
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
Discussion