GECOM explains non-renewal of legal officer’s contract

Last Updated on Wednesday, 9 April 2025, 22:52 by Writer

The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on Wednesday said Attorney-at-Law Kurt Da Silva’s contract as Legal Officer was not renewed because his arguments in a recent opposition High Court case on residency of voters favoured the applicant.

“The Legal Officer acted contrary to this duty by introducing new arguments contrary to the sworn position of the CEO (Chief Election Officer) without prior discussion or authorisation,” GECOM said in a statement.

The CEO had publicly denounced Mr Da Silva’s submissions that essentially advocated two separate ballots – one each for general and regional elections – and verification of addresses of registrants for Regional elections. People’s National Congress Reform’s Chief Scrutineer Carol Smith-Joseph later lost the case based on submissions by Attorney General Anil Nandlall.

That is in stark contrast to opposition-nominated Election Commissioner Vincent Alexander’s claims that the seven-member Commission had known about then Legal Officer Kurt Da Silva’s submissions in a residency case and there was no objection.

GECOM said Mr Da Silva’s behaviour undermined the trust and reliance that was placed in the Legal Officer. The Commission said the Legal Officer was required to act within the scope of authority granted by the CEO, Vishnu Persaud.

By acting outside that scope, particularly in favoring the applicant, GECOM said the Legal Officer violated that fundamental principle.

That is in stark contrast to opposition-nominated Election Commissioner Vincent Alexander’s claims that the seven-member Commission had known about Mr Da Silva’s submissions in the residency case.

Prior to opposition Ms Smith Joseph’s case in which she had sought a declaration that voters’ addresses, particularly for local and regional elections, should be verified, GECOM said Mr Da Silva’s request for contract renewal had been favorably considered.

GECOM confirmed that the Legal Officer was given high scores in his Performance Appraisal and a proposal was tabled by GECOM Chairman, Claudette Singh for his employment contract to be renewed.

The performance review period ended on February 10, 2025, whereas the Legal Officer served in the position until March 31, 2025.

However, there was a change of mind after his performance in the court case.

GECOM said the submissions made by the Legal Officer carried extreme potential for the emergence of harmful effects insofar as confidence in the Commission’s ability to conduct credible elections is concerned, postponement of the elections beyond the Constitutional deadline, which could lead to the aggravation of political conflicts, and consequences associated with legitimacy and governance.

According to the Commission, the question that had to be answered was whether the Legal Officer’s submissions to the court was done without regard as to the consequences, or in error.

The Commission said it was determined that the Legal Officer’s submissions to the court were made without concern for the potential consequences.

Further, it appears that his submissions were supportive of the Applicant’s arguments instead of the respondents whom he was authorised to represent, GECOM added.

GECOM identified several “critical factors” which demonstrated a breach of professional conduct and failure to represent the interests of the client”.

Those factors, GECOM said, were also given due consideration as far as the primary responsibility to represent his clients’ interests diligently and faithfully was concerned.

“This behaviour undermined the trust and reliance that was placed in the Legal Officer. The Legal Officer was required to act within the scope of authority granted by his principal in this case the CEO. By acting outside this scope, particularly in favoring the applicant, the Legal Officer violated this fundamental principle.

The actions taken by the Legal Officer severely eroded trust and confidence in his ability to fullfil his responsibilities, especially in legal matters concerning the conduct of elections. As a consequence, the Chairman denied the Legal Officer’s request for further employment,” GECOM said.