Constitution allows Opposition Leader to either retain or replace GECOM appointees 

Feb 17, 2026 News

---

– Senior law lecturer

(Kaieteur News) – Senior Lecturer, Department of Law at the University of Guyana, Neville Bissember has said that there is no need for a back and forth between political stakeholders over the appointment of opposition commissioners to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

Sharing his view on last Friday’s stream of the Facebook broadcast, Context hosted by Capitol News,’ Enrico Woolford, Bissember held that the new Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed has the flexibility to either retain or replace the GECOM commissioners.

The People’s National Congress-led APNU nominees currently occupy the three opposition seats on GECOM but with WIN now the main opposition, new commissioners from the party are expected to take their place. Mohamed, the founder of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party had announced plans to formally request that the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) -appointed commissioners on the GECOM vacate their seats.

Alluding to Article 161 of the constitution, he noted that this process can take shape only after meaningful consultation with the President and the non-governmental political parties. “Article 161 of the Constitution talks about the election of the six members of the commission, three members to be appointed by the President; the President is always the appointing authority in this case. [And for the opposition] the appointment is made acting on the advice of the Opposition Leader tendered after meaningful consultation…”

He continued “Meaningful Consultation is now defined in the constitution. It actually has to have discussion and so on. So, the leader of the Opposition has to have internal talks with the three non-governmental political parties in the opposition and submits his names.”

The lecturer sought to debunk the claims that the commissioners are appointed to GECOM for life. To this end, he noted that Article 161 (6) points to provision of Article 225 which speaks to removal from office for the Chairman and other members of the commission.

Bissember noted that “… This article shall apply to any office and person holding such office… [Those persons] shall not be removed there from or suspended from the functions thereof unless these conditions, and goes on to state things such as infirmity of mind, misconduct and so on… The operative part is shall not be removed there from or suspended from the functions thereof.’ And here I see people are saying look what that provision says ‘we can’t be removed,’ but my simple question is… is Mr. Alexander being removed or suspended is Mr. Corbin being suspended? The answer is no. Therefore, the course of the constitutional procedure has run and their term of office has come to an end.”

Giving further insight on the topic, Bissember said it is only common sense that the constitutional succession should take shape.

“The most recent thing I saw was that the newly elected Opposition Leader went to see the Chairman Madame Justice Claudette Singh for what I don’t know … and she quite rightly said ‘mister I can’t do nothing.’ And secondly, I saw he wanted to meet with the opposition commissioners and ask them to resign. He doesn’t have to ask them to resign. They don’t even have to resign. He just has to exercise his authority as Leader of the Opposition move forward with the process of selecting his nominees,” the law lecturer explained.  He pointed out that it is utter nonsense to even suggest that office holders have no term limit.

The law lecturer questioned if the elections results had gone the other way whether the commissioners would still hold the position.  “What if Mr. Mohamed was elected President? Would the commissioners still hold the position that they have a lifetime appointment? Would the PPP commissioners represent the interest of Mr. Mohamed and would the opposition commissioners now represent the interest of the PPP?”

Bissember asserted, “In the past, it was an either or the opposition just change sides. In 2015, they stood on the government side and 2020, they move the opposition but now you have a new leader of the opposition… So, this argument that ‘is not you appoint me and I ain’t moving’ is flawed. With the greatest of respect, it has a limitation and certainly in the current context, it doesn’t apply because the appointer… in the past would be a Mr. Granger, Mr. Jagdeo, and Mr. Corbin. Now there is a new kid on the block…”

He continued that “The leader of opposition cannot be personalised; the office is not held by one person. The person who is the leader of the opposition at this point and time, he is the person who under Article 161 has to be consulted with the President … The only question is whether there was meaningful consultation with nongovernmental parties. Out of the greatest respect, that’s a question for Mr. Mohamed, Mr. [Terrence] Campbell and Ms. [Amanza] Walton-Desir, they will have to decide what amounts to meaningful consultation.”

---

• appointees, Commissioners, Constitution, GECOM, Opposition Leader

---