GECOM’S $46.5B expenditure under scrutiny

Nov 01, 2026 News

---

…as Ram questions accountability, absence of clear audit record

(Kaieteur News) – Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has reportedly spent approximately $46.53 billion over the past 15 years, yet questions remain about whether taxpayers have received value for money and whether the institution’s expenditure has been subjected to adequate independent scrutiny.

This is the concern raised by Chartered Accountant and Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram in the first of a two-part commentary titled “GECOM has lost its way – time for reversal: The cost of an electoral institution.”

Ram argues that while the country requires a permanent and professional electoral administration, there is a fundamental difference between maintaining a permanent secretariat and retaining a politically constituted commission indefinitely.

He is questioning whether the institutional arrangement established more than two decades ago remains justified, particularly given the substantial sums allocated to GECOM and the apparent lack of publicly accessible information demonstrating value for money.

According to Ram, a reconstruction of the Ministry of Finance’s published estimates for GECOM, identified as Agency 11, shows that the Commission recorded approximately $11.18 billion in expenditure between 2011 and 2015, $16.63 billion between 2016 and 2020, and $18.73 billion between 2021 and 2025.

The combined expenditure over the three periods amounts to approximately $46.53 billion.

However, original budgetary allocations over the same period totalled approximately $61.98 billion, leaving a difference of $15.45 billion, or almost 25 per cent.

Ram cautioned that the figures are based on published budget estimates rather than a complete series of separately audited GECOM accounts. He also noted that the 2025 expenditure figure is revised rather than final, and that supplementary appropriations and other adjustments must be reconciled before conclusions can be drawn about unspent funds.

Nevertheless, he said the figures raise serious questions about the reliability of GECOM’s budgeting and financial management.

“More fundamentally, what has Guyana received in return for G$46.53 billion in reported expenditure, and where is the independent audit evidence demonstrating that this enormous expenditure represented value for money?” Ram asked.

He stressed that the figures do not necessarily mean the money was wasted, noting that elections were held and electoral registers maintained. However, he questioned how much of the expenditure went towards actual elections and how much was consumed by maintaining the Commission’s permanent establishment.

From temporary to permanent

Ram traced GECOM’s evolution to the electoral reforms introduced following years of disputed elections and allegations of electoral manipulation.

Before 1992, Article 161 of the Constitution provided for a chairman appointed by the President and commissioners representing political parties holding at least five seats in the National Assembly. The appointments were generally tied to an election and ordinarily ended three months afterwards.

The 1985 Elections Commission, he noted, had three members, while a separate National Registration Commission handled voter registration, identification cards and other administrative responsibilities.

The electoral system was subsequently restructured following the involvement of the Carter Center, which helped facilitate reforms that included a commission comprising three government nominees, three opposition nominees and a chairman.

The arrangement was intended to restore public confidence in the electoral process. The Commission remained temporary for the 1992 and 1997 elections before constitutional amendments in 2000 made it permanent and consolidated important electoral responsibilities under it.

Ram acknowledged that continuity in electoral administration was necessary, given the need for trained personnel, registration systems, secure records and election planning.

However, he questioned whether making the politically constituted Commission permanent was the only way to achieve that continuity.

He argued that a professional and permanent secretariat could have been maintained without necessarily preserving a politically divided governing commission.

Ram also questioned the expenditure associated with Local Government Elections (LGE), which are constitutionally intended to be held every three years.

Guyana held local elections in 2016, 2018 and 2023, although postponements disrupted the intended cycle.

He questioned how much money was spent preparing for elections that were subsequently postponed, what allocations were surrendered and what additional costs arose from the delays.

Since the same staff, premises and equipment are used for both general and local elections, Ram said expenditure must be properly separated to avoid double-counting shared costs.

He acknowledged that Guyana’s geography, including remote communities, rivers and difficult transportation routes, makes election administration expensive.

However, he argued that these challenges make proper procurement, planning and independent performance audits even more important.

A comprehensive review, he suggested, should examine staffing, commissioners’ benefits, registration and technology expenditure, procurement practices and operational readiness, while establishing what improvements taxpayers have received.

Ram’s commentary focused on the availability of audited financial statements for the Commission.

He pointed to Article 223(2) of the Constitution, which places constitutional commissions within the Auditor General’s audit mandate.

However, he questioned whether the public can readily establish which of GECOM’s financial statements have been audited, when those audits were conducted and what findings or opinions were issued.

Ram noted that the Audit Office’s published register carries the notation “Established as at 2015” in relation to GECOM, rather than clearly identifying the last year audited.

He cautioned that this does not establish that no audit work was undertaken, but said it underscores the need for a transparent record of completed audits.

He argued that simply reporting GECOM’s expenditure in the national accounts is not a substitute for examining the Commission’s internal controls, programmes and economy.

Ram called on GECOM to identify the financial statements it has prepared and the Audit Office to disclose the audits completed and their findings.

He also questioned the role of Parliament and its Public Accounts Committee in ensuring that the Commission is held accountable for the substantial sums it receives.

Ram’s concerns about GECOM’s institutional structure come against the backdrop of the ongoing impasse over the composition of the Commission following the 2025 General and Regional Elections.

The current disagreement centres on the continued occupation of the three opposition seats by nominees associated with the former APNU+AFC opposition coalition, despite the emergence of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party as the largest non-governmental party in the National Assembly.

Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has since recommended Roysdale Forde, S.C., Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva to President Irfaan Ali for appointment as opposition-nominated commissioners.

The recommendations were formally submitted on June 30, 2026, with a follow-up letter dispatched on August 7. The Presidency has not provided a substantive response, according to the opposition leader’s office.

The impasse has also affected the Commission’s ability to make decisions. In September, United States Ambassador, Nicole Theriot warned that the standstill could prevent regional and local elections from taking place, cautioning that this was “not good for democracy.”

The Carter Center has also called for the dispute to be resolved, expressing concern about GECOM’s ability to organise local elections within the statutory timeframe and undertake electoral reforms ahead of the next general elections.

Ram questioned why the Private Sector Commission, which he said is often eager to pronounce on election results, has not demonstrated similar interest in GECOM’s cost control and efficiency.

He also placed responsibility on the President, Government and Opposition for preserving the existing institutional arrangement.

Ram maintained that international observers’ positive assessments of aspects of the 2025 elections should not be confused with proof that GECOM is functioning efficiently as an institution.

“The arrangement devised for the 1992 return to democracy should not survive indefinitely merely because political parties have become comfortable with it,” he argued.

He said Guyana needs independent and professional election administration rather than an expensive political compromise that continues without sufficient evidence of its value.

---

• expenditure, GECOM, scrutiny

---