Fairness and transparency of the upcoming elections

May 31, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Subsequent to the Press Conference which Commissioners Corbin, Trotman and Alexander hosted on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 there has been much ado in the media, social and mainstream, about our posture and disclosures. We have even been accused by GECOM’s CEO of “disinformation”. It would be remiss of us not to debunk such accusations; and not provide clarity, in the instances where the need for that has been discerned.

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. In fact, the Commission had been advised quite differently by the CEO. 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.

The Chairperson has no remit to personally determine such a matter, and therefore was in no position to proffer such advice to the President before consulting with the Commission, albeit given the partisan practices at GECOM she might have had good reason to assume what the position of the PPP/C Nominated Commissioners would have been, as demonstrated by their attempt, and intent to retroactively give their approval.

The fact that the CEO 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, demonstrates the contemptuous manner in which he treats the Commission with the apparent blessing of the Chairperson. This is but the latest example of unilateral and conniving actions on the part of the CEO with the apparent fiat of the Chairperson.

Connivance and fiduciary malfeasance are also exemplified by the CEO`s contention that the work plan which we were discussing was but a list of activities, rather than a work plan. The document which he circulated, after weeks of delay, was clearly titled: “Draft Work Plan for the Conduct of General and Regional Elections 2025 (v 3.2 – 21 -May -2025)” the sequel to which is the most recent Work Plan with the said title but for “(v 4.0 -27- May – 2025)”, the form and contents of which are substantively the same. Both documents are attached for your scrutiny, and the facilitation of your determination as to who is really engaged in “pertinent disinformation”, a description that the delusional CEO attributes to the Opposition Appointed Commissioners.

As for the other distortions, misinformation and disinformation that have surfaced in the media, the public should be advised that first and foremost our concern is the manner in which GECOM conducts its affairs, and to what end it adopts that manner. For us our concern is relevant and critical to the conduct of free, fair and transparent elections, as is the constitutional mandate of GECOM.

In that regard, there has been no commitment to the finalization of the following matters:

1. Whether or not polling agents will be allowed to exercise their franchise at

the place of work on E Day, if they are working in a polling station other than where they are entitled to cast their vote, or by proxies?

2. Whether the incarcerated, and persons on remand, in particular, will be granted their right to vote?

3. Whether unstamped ballots which are evidently authentic will be validated?

4. Whether the names of the voters who are known to be out of the country, based on the Chief Immigration Officers reports, will be highlighted on the voters’ list.

5. Whether “domicile” will be defined to determine which resident Commonwealth Citizens can be registered, and allowed, to vote?

6. Whether Form 12 will be put to use for the purpose of deleting deceased persons, whose deaths are reported by the Police and/or the Chief Medical Officer, from the voters` list

All of the aforementioned concerns can impact the rights of the electorate, their participation in the elections, the value of their votes, and consequentially the results of the elections. They are therefore germane to the conduct of a free, fair and transparent elections and cannot be simply superseded by the President’s authority to name the date for elections, hence our concern about the manner in which the President was advised, and the date determined, which might not provide for those matters to be resolved.

Had GECOM undertaken a review of its operations and/or addressed those concerns in a timely manner, the issue of unpreparedness would not have arisen. In that regard, unpreparedness is not solely about the conduct of the routine activities. It is about addressing systemic deficiencies, which GECOM has not shown the resolve to address.

Another concern is the manner in which the dates for the activities have been crunched to accommodate the announced date of the elections. Much of the crunching now flies in the face of Best Practices, and the ease of the electorate’s participation in the elections. This also brings into question the fairness and transparency of the elections.

Yours truly,

Commissioners:

Trotman

Corbin; and

Alexander

---

---