GECOM opposition-nominated commissioners protest exclusion from election date decision

Last Updated on Friday, 30 May 2025, 22:56 by Writer

The opposition-aligned Guyana Election Commissioners on Friday slammed their Chairman, Retired Justice Claudette Singh and Chief Elections Officer, Vishnu Persaud for not consulting the commission before the Chairman had advised President Irfaan Ali about the readiness for elections.

A day after the GECOM Secretariat denied claims by the opposition-nominated trio that Ms Singh unilaterally informed the President that the election management authority could be ready for elections by August 25, 2025 they lashed back maintaining that they were left out of decision-making on that matter.

“We maintain that the Chairperson’s advice to the President was unilateral”.

She purported to speak on behalf of the Commission, which had not deliberated and/or made a decision on that matter,” said Commissioners Vincent Alexander, Desmond Trotman and Charles Corbin in a letter to the editor. They said the Commission had been advised “quite differently” by Mr Persaud but provided no details. However, they went on to say that the full seven-member commission should have been involved in the decision. “His subsequent and contrary advice to her required the fiat of the Commission for it to have been treated as the Commission’s advice to the President,” they added.

The President on May 25 announced that September 1 would be the date on which Guyanese would elect a President and members of the 65-seat National Assembly.

The GECOM Secretariat on Thursday said its Chairman received a call from President Ali on Friday, May 23, 2025 enquiring whether the election body would be in a position to hold the elections within three months.

GECOM’s Secretariat said the Chairman asked the President to allow her to consult with the Chief Election Officer before she gave him an answer.

The trio stopped short of accusing the Chief Elections Officer of deception when they noted that he disclosed that he had prepared another plan, which he never brought to the attention of the Commission, as he continued to engage the Commission up until May 20, on the pretext that September 22 was the earliest possible date.

They said that approach, the latest example of unilateral and conniving actions on the part of the CEO with the apparent fiat of the Chairperson. “demonstrates the contemptuous manner in which he treats the Commission with the apparent blessing of the Chairperson.”

Messrs Alexander, Trotman and Corbin said the GECOM Chairman had no remit to personally determine such a matter, and so was in no position to proffer such advice to the President before consulting with the Commission.

They said given the partisan practices at GECOM she might have had good reason to assume what the position of the People’s Progressive Party Civic-nominated Commissioners would have been, as demonstrated by their attempt, and intent to retroactively give their approval.