No authority to resolve impasse over LOO’s commissioner nominees – GECOM

…tells WIN CEO cannot act beyond legal mandate

Following concerns raised by United States (US)-sanctioned and indicted Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has indicated that it lacks the authority to resolve the ongoing impasse over the appointment of his nominees as commissioners. On Wednesday, Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition (LOO) raised concerns over the non-action to appoint its nominees to GECOM. The concerns were outlined in a note circulated to members of the international community. The note was addressed to United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) António Guterres, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) SG Dr Carla Barnett, US Ambassador Nicole Theriot, British High Commissioner Joseph Fisher, the Canadian High Commissioner and the Carter Centre.
The note stated that notwithstanding the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) losing its position as the main parliamentary opposition in the 2025 elections, the party has shut down any considerations of removing any of the current APNU–appointed commissioners to make way for new Commissioners to be appointed by the new main parliamentary opposition, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), headed by US-sanctioned, Azruddin Mohamed. The note further detailed that upon the receipt of legal advice, US-indicted Mohamed wrote President Dr Irfaan Ali on June 30, seeking the appointment of his three nominees as GECOM Commissioners. Mohamed nominated lawyers Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva to replace APNU-backed GECOM commissioners Desmond Trotman, Vincent Alexander and Charles Corbin.

No locus standi
In a statement in response on Friday, GECOM explained that “it has no locus standi in relation to the nomination by the Leader of the Opposition of persons for appointment as Members of the Guyana Elections Commission.” GECOM explained that the nomination and appointment of commissioners are matters governed by Article 161(3)(b) of the Constitution. “GECOM is not the authority vested with responsibility for determining the validity of such nominations or appointments. Accordingly, the Commission cannot properly intervene in, adjudicate upon, or resolve any impasse concerning persons nominated by the Leader of the Opposition for appointment as Commissioners,” GECOM’’s statement further reads. GECOM’s seven-member commission comprises the Chairman, three Government appointed Commissioners and three opposition Commissioners. The appointments are governed by the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2000. A new set of commissioners can be appointed when the Government changes. However, many times the same Commissioners simply switch sides from being Opposition nominated to becoming a Government nominated. With no fixed terms being stipulated in the Constitution for their appointment, Commissioners usually serve until they resign or otherwise become unable to serve. Alexander has been on the Commissioner since the early 2000s, outlasting Government changes across the 2011, 2015, and 2020 elections. Corbin was also appointed in the early 2000s. Trotman was appointed in 2017 to replace a commissioner who passed away that year. This impasse is expected to be addressed by the ongoing constitutional reform process launched by the Government. The Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) has already formally invited public written proposals for constitutional changes, with submissions open until December 31, 2026. Among other things, the Commission said it will consider proposals relating to electoral reform, including the composition of GECOM, the method of appointing its chairman and members, and its jurisdiction over national registration and the electoral process.

Could not unilaterally act
The US-sanctioned LOO also raised concerns over the absence of representatives from WIN or the other opposition party, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), among the 69 opposition scrutineers being paid by GECOM. In response, GECOM confirmed that the 69 scrutineers represent the APNU and its former coalition partner, the Alliance For Change (AFC), under an existing arrangement. “The existence of this arrangement should not, however, be interpreted as a determination by GECOM that the WIN Party or any other opposition political party is not entitled to representation,” the Commission emphasised.
It highlighted that the issue concerning the appointment of scrutineers arose following correspondence between the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Election Officer regarding the submission of a proposed list of scrutineers pursuant to Section 33D of the Representation of the People Act, Cap. 1:03. GECOM noted that upon receipt of the proposed list, the Chief Election Officer (CEO) expressly communicated that he could not unilaterally act upon or implement the submission. GECOM emphasised that this position is grounded in Section 7A of the Representation of the People Act, as amended by Act No. 25 of 2022, which provides: “The Chief Election Officer shall, notwithstanding anything in any written law, be subject to the direction and control of the Commission.” Accordingly, GECOM contended that the CEO does not possess independent authority to alter an existing arrangement or implement a new list where the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission and requires its direction or determination. Moreover, GECOM clarified that it has not determined that the consultation process undertaken by the Opposition Leader as invalid, inadequate or otherwise deficient.
Section 33D(2) of the Representation of the People Act provides for the submission by the Leader of the Opposition of the list of scrutineers to be paid by the Commission on behalf of the combined opposition political parties, following meaningful consultation with the other opposition parties represented in the National Assembly.

APNU objecting to WIN
According to GECOM, while the Leader of the Opposition submitted correspondence dated June 3, together with supporting documentation relating to the consultation undertaken and the proposed appointments, the CEO subsequently received correspondence from APNU formally objecting to the proposal. “The existence of these competing positions did not result in a determination by the Chief Election Officer that the consultation was inadequate. Indeed, by letter dated June 5, 2026, the Chief Election Officer expressly advised the Leader of the Opposition that he was not vested with authority to determine whether meaningful consultation, as contemplated by Section 33D (2), had occurred. He further explained that competing positions advanced by parliamentary opposition parties regarding the consultation process were matters for the parties concerned to address and resolve,” GECOM explained. It added that the relevant correspondence and supporting documentation submitted by the LOO, together with the correspondence received from APNU, were accordingly placed on the official record relating to the appointment of scrutineers until such time as the matter is dealt with conclusively by the Commission.

GECOM further explained that the CEO subsequently reiterated this position in his letter dated June 10, 2026, emphasising that, pursuant to Section 7A, he is subject to the direction and control of the Commission and therefore cannot independently act on matters falling within the Commission’s jurisdiction,”
“It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest that GECOM determined that the WIN Party’s interests or nominations were rejected based on an adverse finding concerning the consultation process. No such finding was made by the Chief Election Officer,” the Commission contended.

The Law
In its missive on Friday, GECOM also emphasised the importance of understanding the distinction between the administrative role of the Secretariat and the statutory authority of the Commission. It noted that the CEO is required to operate within the authority conferred by law and, pursuant to Section 7A of the Representation of the People Act, he is expressly subject to the direction and control of the Commission. “Consequently, where a matter requires consideration or determination by the Commission, the Chief Election Officer cannot substitute his own decision for that of the Commission. This is not a refusal to act. It is compliance with the law governing the office of the Chief Election Officer. The Chief Election Officer has consistently maintained this position in his correspondence with the relevant stakeholder and has done so in a manner that is factual, professional and institutionally neutral,” GECOM highlighted.
GECOM emphasised that it remains committed to transparency, accountability, inclusivity, impartiality and strict adherence to the Constitution and electoral legislation.
“The Commission further considers it in the public interest that all stakeholders have a complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding these matters and of the respective responsibilities of the political parties, the Chief Election Officer, the Secretariat and the Commission,” it noted.
GECOM said it will continue to discharge its responsibilities within the authority conferred upon it by law and will remain committed to ensuring the effective, transparent and credible administration of Guyana’s electoral processes.
GECOM also made it clear that the CEO has, at all times, responded to correspondence received from the WIN party with alacrity, accuracy, specificity and professionalism.
“Each matter has been addressed in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the Chief Election Officer and the limitations imposed upon that office by law,” GECOM maintained.