GECOM in coma

Nov 10, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is among the most important institutions in this country’s democratic framework. Its responsibility for overseeing elections, safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that the will of the electorate is respected cannot be overstated. Its proper functioning is therefore not a matter of political convenience but a constitutional necessity.

It is nothing short of a scandal that GECOM has been unable to convene a meeting since September 17, 2025, leaving the institution effectively paralysed for more than a year. Whatever the disagreements surrounding the composition of the commission, Guyana cannot afford to have its principal electoral body reduced to an institution that exists in name but is unable to discharge its responsibilities.

The position taken by Chairperson Justice Claudette Singh, that the commission cannot function until the dispute over the opposition-appointed commissioners is resolved, raises fundamental questions about the constitutional and ought to be addressed urgently.

The country cannot afford such a prolonged standoff. Commissioner Vincent Alexander is therefore justified in questioning the circumstances surrounding the recent meeting between the chairperson, the chief elections officer and Western diplomats. His central concern deserves serious consideration: on whose authority was the chairperson engaging these representatives on matters concerning the commission when its members have been unable to meet and establish collective positions on those very matters?

This is not to suggest that the chairperson should be prohibited from engaging international representatives or discussing electoral matters. Such engagements can be useful and necessary. However, there must be clarity about the capacity in which she acts, the authority under which she speaks and whether the views expressed represent her own, the administration of GECOM or the collective position of the constitutional commission.

The distinction is important. A chairperson is not the commission itself. The office exists within an institution whose authority and responsibilities are vested in the commission as a collective body. If that body cannot meet, it is reasonable to question how its business can be conducted or its positions represented externally by one individual without an established collective mandate.

There is also an uncomfortable contradiction here. The chairperson has maintained that GECOM cannot function because of uncertainty surrounding its composition. Yet she has participated in discussions with foreign diplomats on electoral reforms, recommendations from observer missions and preparations for future elections.

Alexander has also identified several practical consequences of the impasse, including the absence of a comprehensive evaluation of the 2025 elections, delays in implementing electoral reforms, outstanding administrative appointments, questions surrounding the commission’s budget and uncertainty over preparations for constitutionally due local government elections.

These matters go directly to the credibility, preparedness and independence of Guyana’s electoral system.

Perhaps it is time for a judicial review of the constitutional interpretation that has effectively brought GECOM’s operations to a standstill. The courts exist, among other things, to resolve constitutional disputes where competing interpretations threaten the proper functioning of public institutions. Rather than allowing the impasse to continue indefinitely, the relevant parties should seek an authoritative determination.

That process must also address the wider dispute over the opposition’s representation on the commission. The opposition leadership has argued that the present political configuration is materially different from the one under which the existing commissioners were appointed and has submitted nominees to replace them. President Irfaan Ali’s response, as well as the position of the existing commissioners, remains part of the unresolved controversy. These matters cannot simply be wished away.

Equally, all stakeholders must recognise that GECOM cannot become a casualty of political manoeuvring. Neither the government, the opposition nor the commission’s individual members should place their competing interests above the country’s democratic institutions.

The international community, too, has a legitimate interest in the integrity of Guyana’s electoral process. However, diplomatic engagement should reinforce institutional accountability, not inadvertently lend legitimacy to arrangements that bypass a commission unable to exercise its collective authority.

Guyana’s democracy depends on more than the holding of periodic elections. It requires strong, independent institutions that function transparently, respect constitutional boundaries and command public confidence. GECOM must be at the centre of that framework.

---

• coma, Editorial, GECOM, overseeing elections, Vincent Alexander

---