The same old wine, some in new bottles

Jun 01, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The political opposition in Guyana continues with their obstructionist behaviour towards President Ali’s announcement of September 1, 2025 a date for holding elections in Guyana.

At a press conference held earlier this week the opposition-sponsored members of the commission declared that the President’s announcement of a date was “premature” implying that the President should have waited until such time he was told that the commission had completed discussing all the concerns the political opposition had raised at statutory meetings of the commission.

What this meant was the opposition wanted to veto the constitutional prerogative of the President to name a date on which election must be held. There was even talk in opposition quarters that the Chair should withdraw her state of readiness communication for elections in three months.

Here are some of the demands the opposition wanted settled by the commission before a date could be announced by the President

1.That an internal review of the 2020 elections be carried out by GECOM, not by the Courts;

2.That biometrics for registration and voter identification be introduced for the 2025 elections;

3.That names of persons who may have died overseas be removed from the voters list;

4.That the extant voters list be scrapped as was done in 1990 because it is ‘bloated;‘

5.That a fresh house-to-house registration exercise be conducted with a view to compiling a new voters list;

6.That a house- to-house exercise be conducted to verify whether those persons whose names appear on the voters list actually reside at the address that appears on the said list;

7.That ‘to be domiciled’ be legally defined and settled before a commonwealth citizen can be registered to vote;

8.That the Guyana Elections Commission works in concubinage with the Chief Immigration Officer to provide the Commission with real-time information about the movement of persons whose names appear on the voters’ list in and out of Guyana;

9.That prisoners, particularly those on remand, be registered and allowed to vote;

10.That the laws and regulations applicable to Local Government Elections are applicable mutatis mutandis to General and Regional Elections

11.That all the above opposition concerns should have been settled before the Chair of Elections Commission can advise the President that it is ready to hold an election in three months.

My point is that for over three to four years now, the commission has been discussing these matters with no agreement reached;

No. 1 was rejected by the commission on the ground that only a court of law can do such a review by way of an Election Petition;

No. 2 was discussed but considered not implementable for elections 2025;

No. 3 was discussed but the opposition has made no workable or practical methodology of how this can be done;

No. 4 was discussed but rejected since it was the current list that was used in the 2020 elections won by the APNU+AFC;

No. 5 was rejected on the ground that the current list, when updated through a process of claims and objections, an internal cross- matching exercise and with the adding of names of persons who would have attained the age of 18;

No. 6 was rejected since it was thrown out by the Court

No. 7 was discussed but forwarded to the Attorney General’s Chamber for advice; The AG responded advising the commission to continue with the practice it has executed in the past with respect to registration of Commonwealth citizens and that there is no need to deviate therefrom;

No. 8 was discussed and rejected on the ground that it is unacceptable and unnecessary to have the police involved as an appendage to the Elections Commission;

No. 9 this matter was discussed but was forwarded to the AG’s chambers for advice. The commission is to continue discussion on the matter following the receipt of advice from the AG’s Chambers.

No. 10 was discussed and rejected on the ground that advice received was flawed since Local Government Elections and General and Regional Elections are two separate and distinct elections; the former is to elect members to Neighbourhood Democratic Councils while the latter is to elect members of parliament and a president.

No. 11 was discussed and rejected on the grounds that it is ultra vires the constitutional authority of the President and to dictate when the President can act. At the same time, it is another attempt to bog down the Commission in interminable discussion on matters advanced by the political opposition that may go way beyond 2025. Further, it was clearly an attempt to muzzle the chairman and CEO of the Commission, tying their hands from executing their legitimate functions.

Now that a date has been named for the holding of elections 2025 and a Work Plan has been approved by the commission, it is obvious that the commission will be prioritizing the activities included in its schedule such as a seven-day Claims and Objections period as well as dates for nominations of candidates and identifying symbols among other critical activities necessary for the holding of elections on September 1st 2025.

In the meantime, while the commission is proceeding full speed ahead with the aim of efficiently and effectively implementing its work plan, deliberations will continue at the commission with a view to concluding consideration on the two matters at 7 and 9 and a few matters reminiscent of the complaints raised by the political opposition at the recount at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre.

It should be noted however that while the political opposition has expressed either dissatisfaction and or disagreement with all the aforementioned matters, Guyanese should not rest on their laurels nor adopt a throwback attitude during these critical days when much work is required on the ground. There is no room for complacency at this time.

Also, Guyanese should be on the alert for any further attempt by the political opposition to disrupt the electoral process given their unpreparedness and their track record that speaks volumes. They have consistently publicly stated that GECOM is not capable of holding a free and fair election, that it’s ‘management is incompetent and unqualified’ and that its chairman is ‘biased’.

Nothing new… the same old wine in a few new bottles but all self-serving, advanced by those who remain impervious to the truth and present-day realities existing in Guyana.

 

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

---

---