Too many partisan local observers

Sep 10, 2025 Letters

Dear Editor,

The credibility of elections rests not only on GECOM’s administration but also on the integrity of those who monitor the process. Observation is meant to guarantee impartiality, fairness, and trust. Yet in Guyana, the standards for accrediting domestic observers have been dangerously lowered.

We witnessed individuals—many of them openly supportive of the PPP/C—being granted accreditation under the cover of business chambers and civic bodies, from the PSC and GCCI to AmCham. Some had even publicly endorsed Dr. Irfaan Ali before elections. How then can they reasonably claim neutrality while observing the very contest they had already chosen sides on? By approving these groups, GECOM has weakened public trust in an already fragile process.

This approval directly conflicts with Section 84A of the Representation of the People Act, Cap. 1:03, which allows GECOM to accredit observers but subjects them to guidelines for impartiality. GECOM’s own guidelines state clearly that: “Observers shall be independent and impartial in the discharge of their duties” and “shall not be affiliated with or represent any political party or candidate contesting the elections.” By accrediting politically aligned groups, GECOM has acted contrary to both its legal mandate and its own rules.

Internationally, this breaches the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation (2005), endorsed by the UN, OAS, and EU, which requires strict political neutrality. The Carter Center’s guidelines similarly emphasize that observers must avoid even the perception of bias. Allowing politically tainted groups to masquerade as neutral observers undermines both domestic law and global standards.

The U.S. Embassy, which often partners with these chambers, must also hold them to higher standards. The Embassy represents not just U.S. interests, but the democratic principles it so often champions. By tolerating politically tainted observation, it risks undermining its own credibility and the values it claims to promote. AmCham for example had the most political activists under the guise of observers. The same can be said of the Private Sector Commission. What purpose do these partisan bodies serve. Many of the observers even endorsed President Ali before.

Meanwhile, statutory bodies such as the ERC continue to drain taxpayers’ dollars with little to show. Where is their report on election observation? What value have they added to ensure public confidence? The RBJS initiative also deserves scrutiny—was it truly about strengthening transparency, or simply a platform for government-aligned Commissioners to maintain a narrative?

Elections belong to the people, not to political parties or compromised observers. The role of an observer is not to legitimize partisan agendas but to safeguard democracy. Until Guyana demands and enforces higher standards—consistent with both its own laws and international norms—the trust that elections require will remain under serious threat.

Latest News

Too many partisan local observers

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Similar Articles

Listen to the The Glenn Lall Show

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Ming and Ten-Pow headline MPS Kart Revival at Thomas Lands

VIEW ALL SPORTS

Features/Columnists

The U.S. has been known to lack solid evidence

Sir. Ronald Sanders

The Cost of Silence: How the OAS is Undermining its Own Relevance

The GHK Lall Column

Tis the week of Judas

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

> Berbice Bridge […]