Latest update March 26th, 2026 12:30 AM
GECOM says lawyer’s conduct in court case triggered non-renewal of contract
Kaieteur News- The non-renewal of the employment contract of Guyana Election’s Commission’s (GECOM) Legal Officer, Kurt Da Silva, was largely owing to his conduct in a court matter challenging the verification process of the elections commission.
Attorney Kurt Da Silva
This is according to a statement issued by GECOM. The statement outlined that the deliberations on the request of Mr. Da Silva to have his employment contract with the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) renewed concluded at the Commission’s Statutory Meeting on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, with a majority decision being taken against renewal.
GECOM acknowledged that in his performance appraisal, the Legal Officer was indeed given high scores with a proposal from the Chairman that his employment contract be renewed. In this regard, however, the Commission noted that it is of crucial importance to emphasise that the performance review period ended on February 10, 2025, whereas the Legal Officer served in the position until March 31, 2025.
Further, subsequent to the preparation of the performance appraisal, GECOM noted that there was the emergence of new circumstances involving the Legal Officer, which ultimately led to the Chairman concluding that there existed a compelling case for his employment not to be renewed.
The Commission pointed out that the Legal Officer represented the Chief Election Officer in a court matter based on the provisions of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act No. 25 of 2022, concerning the verification of the addresses of applicants for registration.
According to GECOM, the submissions made by the Legal Officer carried extreme potential for the emergence of harmful effects insofar as confidence in the Commission’s ability to conduct credible elections is concerned, postponement of the elections beyond the constitutional deadline, which could lead to the aggravation of political conflicts, and consequences associated with legitimacy and governance.
The Commission noted that the question that had to be answered was whether the Legal Officer’s submissions to the court were made without regard to the consequences, or in error. “In this regard, it was determined that the Legal Officer’s submissions to the court were made without concern for the potential consequences.”
Further, the Commission said that it appears that his submissions were supportive of the applicant’s arguments instead of the respondents whom he was authorised to represent. “The following critical factors, which demonstrated a breach of professional conduct and failure to represent the interests of the client, were also given due consideration. The primary responsibility of the Legal Officer was to represent his clients’ interests diligently and faithfully. In this case, the Legal Officer acted contrary to this duty by introducing new arguments contrary to the sworn position of the CEO without prior discussion or authorization,” GECOM said in its statement
According to the Commission, the behaviour undermined the trust and reliance that was placed in the Legal Officer. “The Legal Officer was required to act within the scope of authority granted by his principal, in this case, the CEO. By acting outside this scope, particularly in favoring the applicant, the Legal Officer violated this fundamental principle.”
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
