Political parties livid over GECOM’s secrecy about lawyer retained for legal matters

Aug 23, 2025 News

---

Kaieteur News – Several political parties contesting the September 1 general and regional elections have voiced serious concerns over the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) withholding the identity of the legal representative it has retained to act in place of a legal officer.

They argue that this lack of transparency undermines confidence in the electoral process.

Adressing the media on Friday, Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO) Anneal Giddings reiterated that GECOM had not formally discussed or approved the hiring of any legal officer. “I still maintain the position that we have not gotten any premature [decision] to discuss any employment or retention of anyone from the commission, so I will not be commenting on that,” he told reporters.

When questioned further on whether there is a legal officer currently in place, Giddings responded, “There is no legal officer. GECOM does not have a legal officer. I can say one has been retained.”

This response has triggered alarm among political stakeholders. Speaking during a press conference, chairman of the Alliance for Change (AFC), David Patterson, described the situation as “very troubling,” particularly given that the commission has yet to disclose the identity of the retained lawyer. Patterson emphasised that political parties, as key stakeholders, should be involved in such decisions and made aware of who is providing legal guidance to GECOM.

“We have complained from the very outset about GECOM using the attorney general as their legal advisor and representative. Now, we’ve heard… that they retained an external counsel and it is baffling to know. This is just for the integrity of the process, that they have not revealed who it is. Parties would like to know,” Patterson said.

“I’m not trying to impugn any lawyers’ integrity. We’ll be on it if I do that. But however, we should know, because we are stakeholders, they could have appointed somebody who is equally entwined as Anil Nandlall is to the PPP. And there must be some process. Should have been some process whereby everybody would have to be able to voice their opinion, particularly the commissioners on who they’re going to appoint. So, it is troubling,” he explained.

Patterson added that if the retained legal officer is not someone who is viewed as neutral and acceptable to all sides, it could place the election on a “very rough track.”

APNU’s leader Aubrey Norton also condemned the commission’s silence, calling it yet another sign of GECOM’s lack of transparency and growing partisanship.

“It is the manifestation of the usual lack of transparency and accountability on the part of GECOM,” Norton said.

“We are well aware that GECOM by now is considered a partisan institution that is directed by the People’s Progressive Party and the rationale I would say is essentially, we pointed out before that the chairman of GECOM votes with the PPP, a lot of the decisions made are not rational decisions, some of them are not even in keeping with the law and so we have to continue to battle so we can ensure that we can get free and fair elections.”

Odessa Primus, General Secretary of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, shared similar concerns. She stressed that such decisions should never be kept secret in a process that affects all stakeholders.

“All parties should be concerned because in this process there should be no secrets particularly one that would affect all of us,” she said.

“I cannot understand what would be the rationale behind keeping this a secret, and so many of us, giving that the party had some concerns during this process in terms of it being one that is there, and if we now going to have secrets in the process then it lends a more concern,” Primus explained.

Presidential Candidate of the Forward Guyana Movement, Amanza Walton-Desir, acknowledged concern. No further comment was made.

Efforts to get comments from PPP elections agent to GECOM, Zulfikar Mustapha, and the Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) on the issue were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, in its recently released pre-election report, the Carter Center noted the ongoing absence of a legal officer at GECOM and the complications that come with it. The report warned that GECOM’s previous reliance on the attorney general’s office for legal advice, given that the AG is a political appointee and candidate in the elections, serious concerns have been raised about conflict of interest.

“In the absence of a legal officer, GECOM has at times sought advice from the attorney general, which in some interlocutors’ eyes undermines the commission’s impartiality,” the report stated.

“While there may be instances where consulting the Ministry of Legal Affairs is appropriate, because the AG is a candidate, it raises questions. The Carter Center welcomed GECOM’s recent action to recruit a new legal officer and urged commissioners to act promptly to ensure adequate legal representation is in place, particularly in the event of election-related legal challenges.”

---

• Elections, GECOM, legal matters, Political Parties, secrecy

---