GECOM’s former legal officer demands GECOM chairman apologise about his performance

Last Updated on Monday, 14 April 2025, 21:15 by Writer

The former legal officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Attorney-at-Law Kurt Da Silva on Monday insisted that GECOM Chairman Retired Justice Claudette Singh and Chief Election Officer Vishnu Persaud were informed about his submission that residency is a requirement for Regional Elections.

By a majority, the Commission decided that Mr Da Silva’s contract must not be renewed because of “new circumstances” that centered on his representation of the Commission in a manner that instead mirrored the interest of the applicant – People’s National Congress Reform Chief Scrutineer Carol Smith-Joseph. GECOM subsequently issued a statement outlining the apparent reasons for not doing so.

Mr Da Silva reminded Ms Singh that after he read GECOM’s press release dated 9 April 2025 titled ‘Non-Renewal of the Employment Contract of GECOM’s legal officer’, he contyacted her to enquire whether it had originated from her office and urged that it be retracted. He said he asked that that statement be replaced with another, “acknowledging the falsity of its contents”. He said Ms Singh t0ld him that she would take it down but no action was taken. “It is therefore distressing that the referenced press release is replete with false and misleading statements about my professional conduct and legal submissions. These mischaracterizations have already caused significant harm to my reputation and stand in stark contrast to the truth of what transpired,” he said.

But in his strongly worded letter on Monday, Mr. Da Silva issued a deadline of April 22, 2025 to Ms. Singh requiring her to apologise, failing which, he would file a lawsuit. “If no such confirmation is forthcoming by that date, I will regrettably have to pursue legal remedies to vindicate my rights and restore my reputation. I truly hope that litigation can be avoided and that this matter can be resolved by GECOM doing the right thing, as I remain confident you will appreciate the gravity of the situation,” he said.

Mr Da Silva said the seven-member Commission and Chief Election Officer Vishnu Persaud were at all times aware of his position that Article 73(1) of Guyana’s Constitution requires voters to be resident in the 10 Regions in order to vote in elections for regional councillors. He said at no time did the Chairman ever object to his submissions.

He specifically stated that Mr Persaud had formally inked a court document averring that residency is a requirement for the regional elections. The former legal officer said all pleadings in the matter, including GECOM’s and the Commissioner of Registration’s defenses, were completed by 28 January 2025.

The Affidavit in Defence sworn by the CEO (dated 29 January 2025) “explicitly acknowledges” that “The Constitution does require members of an RDC to be elected by persons residing in the region and explains that an electoral list would be extracted and subjected to claims and objections to ensure that only qualified (resident) persons vote in those elections. These sworn statements by the CEO mirrored the legal reasoning I had shared in advance.”

Mr Persaud later publicly denounced Mr Da Silva’s submissions in court.

The Attorney-at-Law, who was a Judicial Counsel at the Trinidad-headquartered Caribbean Court of Justice before taking up the GECOM appointment three years ago, referred to a conversation in which the GECOM Chairman had acknowledged the correctness of his legal reasoning on residency.

“Oral arguments were heard before the Chief Justice on 17 March 2025. After the hearing, I briefed you on the proceedings. I specifically mentioned that the Attorney General, representing the 1st Respondent, argued the position that residence is not required for Regional Elections – a position which you yourself found puzzling, as you literally took out the Constitution, pointed to Article 73(1) and noted, ‘It says ”shall” (be residing in the region)… so how he gon say that?’ This reaction from you reaffirmed your position that my interpretation (that the law does impose a residency requirement for RDC electors) was correct,” he recounted.

The lawyer disagreed with GECOM that subsequent to the preparation of the Performance Appraisal, there was the emergence of new circumstances involving the legal officer, which ultimately led to the Chairman concluding that there existed a compelling case for his employment not to be renewed.’ He said it was misleading to describe his court submissions as “new circumstances” arising after his performance review.

While the appraisal stated that it covered the period ending 10 February 2025, he said it was not completed and circulated by the GECOM Chairman until 5 March 2025. By that time, he added, all pleadings and his written submissions in the court matter of Carol Smith-Joseph v AG, Commissioner of Registration & GECOM had already been filed and circulated to her, the Chief Election Officer (CEO), and all Commissioners. “In other words, you and the Commission were fully aware of my involvement in that case before finalizing my appraisal, and notably, my strong performance appraisal was issued with this knowledge in hand. More importantly, the content of my legal submissions was not a surprise to GECOM. For several months, I apprised you and the Commission of the relevant legal issues and my considered position.”

He said the Chief Election Officer swore that the Constitution requires RDC voters to reside in their region and that the mechanism of claims and objections is used to ensure that criterion is met. Mr Da Silva added that his submissions took those premises to their logical conclusion — that if residency must be ensured for RDC elections and if, due to recent changes, residency is no longer verified at registration, then GECOM must adjust its processes (separate lists/ballots) to lawfully satisfy both the constitutional residency requirement and the statutory framework for general elections. “There is nothing in the CEO’s affidavit that contradicts this logic; in fact, the affidavit is consistent with it,” he said.

The then legal officer said that at no time did the Chief Election Officer or anyone else instruct him to take a different legal position. On the contrary, he said the GECOM Chairman expressed agreement with his position multiple times. Against that backdrop, he said to claim that he acted without ‘prior discussion or authorisation’ is misleading.

“The core legal arguments were not only discussed but were actively shared in writing with the Commission months in advance. While it is true the Commission did not formally deliberate and bless a specific litigation strategy (partly because you expressly decided to wait on the Court’s ruling), I was never directed not to pursue the line of argument I took,” he said.

Mr Da Silva said he has dispatched a similar letter to the Chief Election Officer.

Citing examples of confidence in his competence that the GECOM Chairman had reposed in him, he told her that during the Carol Smith-Joseph case, she was urged by “certain government officials and at least one Commissioner to bring in external counsel, and you declined to do so, reaffirming that you trusted me to handle the matter.”