Dear Editor,
The current impasse over the composition of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is not a mere procedural disagreement. It is a moment that compels us to examine uncomfortable truths about our democratic journey and the forces that have, time and again, sought to subvert it.
At the heart of this controversy lies a simple constitutional fact: the terms of the PNCR-appointed GECOM commissioners expired with the September 2025 General Elections. Having been rejected by the Guyanese electorate, they nevertheless insist, against all legal reason, that their appointments are indefinite. This position is untenable and represents a fundamental disrespect for the democratic will expressed at the polls.
This behaviour follows a well-documented historical pattern. The PNC’s record—from the manipulated elections of 1968, 1973, 1980, and 1985, to the suspension of Habeas Corpus under the National Security Act—reveals a consistent approach to governance: institutions are tools to be captured, not guardians to be respected. The 1980 Constitution, crafted to concentrate power in an executive presidency, was designed to entrench authority rather than accountability, something which the PPP loves today. That legacy is not confined to history books; it manifests today in the refusal of commissioners to submit to the new Opposition Leader, elected constitutionally by the people.
Mr. Vincent Alexander’s claim to independence rings hollow when his actions consistently align exclusively with the interests of the PNCR and its surrogate the APNU. His refusal to meet with the new Opposition Leader from the WIN Party raises a fundamental question: how can a commissioner claim impartiality while rejecting the very authority the Constitution vests in the Opposition Leader to recommend appointments?
This is not about personalities. It is about institutional integrity. GECOM is the custodian of our electoral franchise. When its composition is held hostage by those who refuse to accept electoral defeat, the entire democratic framework is imperiled. The Local Government Elections, already constitutionally due, are now threatened precisely because GECOM is not properly constituted. This is not a choice by the Government; it is a consequence of the PNCR’s and APNU’s obstruction.
The irony is profound. The very party that historically manipulated elections to maintain power now positions itself as a defender of electoral integrity—while simultaneously refusing to accept the constitutional process that would allow GECOM to function. Their conduct during the 2020 elections impasse, which exposed their willingness to subvert the people’s will, should have been a cautionary tale. Instead, it appears to have become a template.
There is, however, a constructive path forward. It is commendable that Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, the Opposition Leader, has begun the process of consultation with smaller opposition parties and has proposed names—including Mr. Roysdale Forde, a member of the PNC—for consideration. This demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and constitutional fidelity. The Chairman of GECOM has indicated her readiness to proceed once the President and the Leader of the Opposition fulfil their respective constitutional mandate. The framework for resolution exists; what is lacking is the will on the party of the PNCR and APNU to know their electoral place and act accordingly.
The stakes extend beyond the immediate impasse. If GECOM remains incapacitated, Local Government Elections will be deferred to the benefit of the PPP who is losing electoral momentum. But does the PNCR care? No, because the PNCR and the PPP are two peas from the same pod and who knows might be working together on this matter to keep the PPP in power as a favour to Mr. Granger and Mr. Norton for them to get a bigger pension.
More critically, if the pattern of obstruction continues, the 2031 General Elections could face the same fate and the PPP will have no choice but to extend their term in office by 2 or 3 years more. The responsibility for such an outcome would rest squarely on Mr. Norton, the PNCR and the APNU, who have chosen constitutional defiance over democratic duty.
To the leadership of the APNU coalition—particularly Mr. Aubrey Norton—I pose a sincere question: is the defence of expired appointments truly the legacy you wish to leave? This is not about any one individual or party. It is about Guyana, its institutions, and the promise of a democracy where every vote counts and every election is respected.
Guyanese citizens have demonstrated, time and again, their commitment to democratic principles. The 2025 election results were a clear mandate. The PNCR and APNU would do well to read that result not as a setback to be reversed through procedural gamesmanship, but as a signal that the people demand accountability, transparency, and respect for their democratic will.
The time for gamesmanship has passed. The Constitution provides a clear framework for reconstituting GECOM. The Chairman awaits the appointments. The Opposition Leader has initiated the process. What remains is for all parties to act with the statesmanship that this moment demands—and for the Guyanese people to hold their leaders accountable to the democratic ideals we profess to uphold.
Yours faithfully,
Surujdai Juglall
Discussion