Tie-breaking law favours WIN in Region 10

Oct 15, 2025 News

---

…REO ignored mandatory second round, numerical computation clause in Cap. 28:09

(Kaieteur News) – The We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) Party will likely secure chairmanship of Region 10 and legal experts have knocked the REO, Dwight John for allegedly breaking the law when he adjourned the meeting after the first round of voting for a chairman that produced a tie between the candidates last Friday.

The Local Democratic Organs Act (Cap. 28:09), which was amended in 2018 specifically outlined the provisions governing how a tie must be resolved. When the vote for Chairman ended in a 9–9 tie between WIN’s Mark Goring and APNU’s Dominique Blair last week, John abruptly halted the process and declared that the matter would be referred to the Minister of Local Government, Priya Manickchand for resolution. That act, legal experts agree, was flatly unlawful.

No need for Priya

Attorney-at-law and Leader of the Forward Guyana Movement, Amanza Walton-Desir pointed out to this newspaper that under Section 20 (6) of the Local Democratic Organs Act as amended by the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Act of 2018 there is no provision whatsoever for ministerial involvement in breaking a tie. Instead, she says the law explicitly lays out a multi-step process that the REO and Clerk were bound to follow: “(6) (a) If there is no election under subsection (5) for the office of Chairman on account of equality of votes of the councillors present and voting, the Clerk shall immediately declare the councillors receiving the greatest number of equal votes as candidates for a second round of voting.

(b) At the second round of voting, the Clerk shall proceed to take the votes of the councillors present for the candidates and declare the councillor securing the greatest number of votes to be elected as Chairman. (c) If there is no election on account of equality of votes of the councillors present and voting during the second round of voting, the Clerk shall immediately declare the councillors receiving the greatest number of equal votes as candidates for a third round of voting.

(d) At the third round of voting, the Clerk shall proceed to take the votes of the councillors present for the candidates and shall declare the councillor securing the greatest number of votes to be elected as Chairman.

(e) If there is no election on account of equality of votes during the third round, the Clerk shall record the disposition of each councillor present and voting.

(f) Having recorded that disposition, the Clerk shall then compute the numeric seat value apportioned to each councillor present and voting who was elected under the proportional representation (PR) system. Those values are then applied to the candidates for whom they voted, and the candidate securing the greatest number shall immediately be declared duly elected as Chairman.

(g) Each councillor elected from a PR list is deemed to have an equal numeric seat value corresponding to the total number of votes received by that list divided by the total number of seats allocated to that list.

Walton-Desir explained that in simple terms, the Act requires that the Clerk must assign weight to each councillor’s vote based on how many votes their party received in the regional elections. That process if lawfully applied would have made Goring the clear winner, since WIN received 10,458 votes, almost twice the amount secured by APNU (5,334) and far above the PPP (4,260).

WIN’s numerical strength seals it

Under paragraph (f), when each councillor’s seat value is computed according to the votes earned by their party list, WIN’s councillors collectively carry the greatest weighted seat value in the chamber. According to the law, once those votes are tallied as the law mandates the candidate “securing the greatest number” must be immediately declared elected. Another lawyer told this newspaper that if the computations were done the tie would have been broken.

There is also another provision for the “casting of lots”, but this only applies after this computation fails to produce a winner.  Under this provision the law states: “Where by reason of equality of votes, following the exhaustion of the procedures outlined in paragraphs (a) to (g), no person is elected Chairman, the Clerk, acting in the presence of a designated Magistrate, the councillors present and members of the public, shall by lot choose one of the candidates from the third (final) round of voting and shall declare the candidate chosen to be duly elected as Chairman.”

“It is therefore legally impossible, under Cap. 28:09, for the REO to claim that the matter must now be sent to the Minister for decision,” the lawyer who asked not be named said.

Goring’s protest ignored

Meanwhile, during Friday’s proceedings, Goring did raise the point that the law requires a second round of voting and, but this was ignored by the REO who went ahead and adjourn the meeting- an act that WIN has since called a flagrant breach of procedure. WIN on Sunday issued a 48-hour ultimatum demanding that the Ministry of Local Government order the REO to reconvene the meeting and comply with the law, failing which WIN intends to move to the High Court for redress.

In the ultimatum letter to John, Siand Dhurjon lawyer for the WIN’s party in objecting to the REO’s approach stated: “You are hereby advised that your suspension of the election process of the RDC Chairman and your intention to seek the Minister’s ‘deliberation, pronouncement and casting vote’ is ultra vires, contrary to statute, arbitrary, unreasonable and otherwise illegal. There is no longer any power held by the Minister to unilaterally determine and impose the Chairmanship of any Regional Democratic Council, without more.”

He further advised that the Clerk must follow the procedures outlined under section 20(6)(a) to (h) of the Local Democratic Organs Act, Cap. 28:09, which provide for multiple rounds of voting to break a tie, and, if necessary, the final selection of a Chairman “by lot through a public process the Chairman.” The attorney warned that failure to reconvene the council to lawfully complete the election within 48 hours will result in legal proceedings being filed in the Supreme Court to compel compliance. He also cautioned the Minister of Local Government, who was copied on the correspondence, to “refrain from treading upon any path of illegality,” noting that she could also be named as a respondent in any court action should she intervene improperly. Efforts to elicit a comment from Minister Manickchand and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall  on the matter were unsuccessful.

Outside the law

Senior legal observers say the REO acted ultra vires. The law vests no discretion in him to defer the decision to a political office. “The process is entirely local, mathematical, and transparent,” one former elections officer explained. “Once the votes are equal, you go to a second round. If still tied, you record each councillor’s disposition, apply the numeric seat values, and tally. There is absolutely no role for the minister. The REO’s action is null,” one expert said.

The controversy also raises troubling questions about whether the REO as the accounting officer of the region and a political appointee can be trusted to act neutrally in such pivotal matters, Political analyst GHK Lall stated. Writing in Kaieteur News, Lall warned that Guyana’s governance culture still suffers from “institutional cowardice”, noting that public officials are unwilling to apply the law when it conflicts with political power. WIN’s Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, meanwhile, cautioned that “what is unfolding in Region 10 reflects the PPP’s and APNU’s deep fear of genuine third-force leadership.” Region 10, long regarded as the political heartland of the PNC/APNU, shifted its loyalty to WIN at the September 1 elections. In the popular vote, WIN triumphed overwhelmingly, outpacing both the APNU/PNCR and PPP/C combined.

---

• Chairmanship, Dwight John, Mark Goring, Region 10, REO, We Invest in Nationhood

---