The courts must settle the GECOM question

Jun 30, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Much has been said in recent months about the deadlock over appointments to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The impasse was created after it was felt that the new leader of the opposition had a right to select his nominees to GECOM to replace the APNU-appointed nominees.

This view however was not shared by the either the existing opposition- nominated commissioners that presently sit on the commission. Nor has it been supported by the former leader of the opposition and head of the APNU.

Various solutions have been proposed to break this impasse. One recent suggestion is that one seat should go to the main opposition, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), one should remain with an existing APNU-nominated commissioner, and the remaining seat should go to the Forward Guyana Movement which holds a seat in parliament. On the surface, this may appear to be a practical compromise.

The problem, however, is that this is not fundamentally a political dispute. It is a legal one.

When a disagreement arises over political preferences, compromise is often possible. Political parties can negotiate, make concessions, and arrive at an arrangement that everyone can live with. But when the disagreement concerns the meaning of the constitution or the law, compromise cannot provide a lasting answer. The law is not decided around a negotiating table. It is interpreted by the courts.

The central question in the present controversy is straightforward. Do the existing opposition-nominated commissioners enjoy security of tenure that continues regardless of changes in the office of the leader of the opposition? Or does their tenure become subject to review whenever there is a new leader of the opposition?

Reasonable people may hold different views on this issue. Lawyers may disagree. Political parties certainly disagree. But there is only one institution in Guyana that possesses the constitutional authority to provide a definitive interpretation. That institution is the judiciary.

Until that legal question is answered, every proposed political solution will remain vulnerable to challenge. Any arrangement reached today may simply create another dispute tomorrow. One side will continue to argue that the appointments are lawful, while the other side will insist that they are not.

GECOM occupies a unique place in our constitutional system. It is the body responsible for administering elections and safeguarding the integrity of the democratic process. Public confidence in GECOM cannot rest on political convenience. It must rest on clear legal foundations.

Some may argue that the parties should simply find common ground and move forward. While compromise has its place in politics, it cannot replace constitutional interpretation. If the law says one thing, no amount of political bargaining can make it say another. Political agreements may resolve temporary tensions, but they cannot override the constitution.

Indeed, Guyana has faced similar situations before. There have been occasions when constitutional disputes produced uncertainty and political disagreement. In at least one notable instance, a private citizen approached the courts seeking clarification of the law. The resulting judicial determination helped to bring clarity to a contentious issue and assisted in resolving the impasse.

That precedent offers an important lesson. When constitutional uncertainty exists, the courts provide the proper avenue for resolution.

The present dispute calls for the same approach. Someone—whether a political party, a civil society organisation, or even a concerned citizen—should move swiftly to seek a judicial interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions. The courts should be asked to determine the precise nature of the tenure enjoyed by opposition-nominated commissioners and whether a change in the office of leader of the opposition affects that tenure.

Such a ruling would benefit everyone. It would provide certainty to the government, certainty to the opposition, certainty to GECOM itself, and most importantly, certainty to the public.

Unresolved legal ambiguities create fertile ground for political conflict. Judicial clarification, on the other hand, establishes a common framework within which all sides must operate.

The issue before the country is therefore not who should occupy a particular seat on GECOM. The more important issue is who has the authority to decide the matter. Under our constitutional system, that authority belongs to the courts.

The sooner the legal question is placed before the judiciary, the sooner the country can move beyond speculation, argument and political manoeuvring. What Guyana needs is not another compromise that may be challenged tomorrow. What Guyana needs is a definitive legal interpretation that settles the matter once and for all.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) 

---

• APNU, Forward Guyana Movement, GECOM, Peeping Tom

---