‘Apologise and retract false statements or face litigation’ – Former GECOM Legal Officer tells Chair and CEO

Apr 15, 2025 News

---

Kaieteur News-  Former Legal Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Kurt Da Silva on Monday demanded that GECOM’s Chairperson and Chief Elections Officer (CEO) issue a public apology and retraction for “false allegations” made about him in two press releases or be prepared to face legal action.

In letters dated April 14, 2025 and addressed to the GECOM Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh and the CEO Vishnu Persaud, Da Silva outlined the “falsehoods and mischaracterizations” perpetuated against him and its damaging effects against his professional conduct.

In a detailed letter to Justice Singh, Da Silva expressed his deep regret and concern regarding the press release issued by GECOM on 9 April 2025 titled ‘Non-Renewal of the Employment Contract of GECOM’s Legal Officer’.

DaSilva served as the Commission’s legal officer for the past three years. His contract was up for renewal and according to him, he received an exemplary performance appraisal from the Chairperson and an accompanying recommendation for his contract’s renewal.

Last week, the government-nominated commissioners voted against the renewal of Da Silva’s contract and their position was supported by the Chairperson. The GECOM Chair and government commissioners posited that his submissions in the Carol Smith-Joseph v AG, Commissioner of Registration & GECOM case were contrary to instructions.

However, the attorney made it clear that his written submissions in the said case was submitted and circulated to the Chairperson, CEO and all commissioners. In his lengthy letter to the GECOM Chair, Da Silva made it clear that the press release issued by GECOM was “replete with false and misleading statements” about his professional conduct and legal submissions.

“I was especially surprised and disheartened to see such inaccuracies published with the apparent authority of the Commission. You, more than anyone, are aware of the actual sequence of events and the lack of veracity in the allegations made. In fact, upon reading the press release, I reached out to you immediately to inquire if it originated from your office and to urge that it be retracted. I implored that it be replaced with a statement acknowledging the falsity of its contents. You even said to me that you would tell them to take it down. Unfortunately, no corrective action has been taken,” Da Silva said in his letter to Justice Singh.

As a consequence, the GECOM officer said that he was left with no choice but to address the matter formally through his letter, to set the record straight.

“…The content of my legal submissions was not a surprise to GECOM. For several months, I apprised you and the Commission of the relevant legal issues and my considered position on them,” the attorney said while detailing every communication on the subject in the lengthy letter.

He said Justice Singh was alerted to the constitutional requirement that voters in Regional Democratic Council (RDC) elections must reside in their respective regions.

“I further observed that, due to the 2022 amendments to the National Registration Act, this residency requirement would necessitate procedural changes – specifically, the extraction of separate voters’ lists for General and Regional Elections (with each list subjected to claims and objections to ensure the appropriate residency criteria), and the use of separate ballot papers for the two elections. You did not disagree with these conclusions when we discussed them.”

He added: “In fact, I memorialized this in a formal memo titled; “Residency Requirement for General and Regional Elections” dated 25 November 2024, which I submitted to both you and the CEO. You circulated that memo to all Commissioners on 2 December 2024. At no time did you or any Commissioner express disagreement with the memo’s contents; to the contrary, my understanding from our conversations was that you found my legal analysis sound.”

Da Silva noted that the CEO raised practical questions about his submissions but he was advised by Justice Singh to ‘wait and see’ what the Chief Justice decides. He made it clear that the Chairperson at no point communicated her disagreement or dissatisfaction with his submissions or that his handling of the case gave rise to any “compelling case” for the non-renewal of his contract.

He said that GECOM’s claim of new circumstances arising resulting in his contract not being renewed is far from the truth.

“It is misleading to describe my court submissions as “new circumstances” arising after my performance review. While the appraisal stated that it covered the period ending 10 February 2025, it was not completed and circulated by you until 5 March 2025. By that time, all pleadings and my written submissions in the court matter of Carol Smith-Joseph v AG, Commissioner of Registration & GECOM had already been filed and circulated to you, the Chief Election Officer (CEO), and all Commissioners. In other words, you and the Commission were fully aware of my involvement in that case before finalizing my appraisal, and notably, my strong performance appraisal was issued with this knowledge in hand.”

Da Silva emphasized that the “new circumstances” referred to by the Commission in its press release were “matters on which I had kept the Commission, and more particularly you, fully informed, and to which I was met with either explicit support or, at minimum, no objection or contrary instruction.”

“If anything, the only new development after my appraisal was the Chief Justice’s decision in the case, which vindicated GECOM’s position. (I will address that shortly.) It is therefore unfounded to suggest that something unforeseen arose that justified reversing your favourable view of my performance,” he said.

Responding to GECOM’s claim that his submissions before the court “carried extreme potential for the emergence of harmful effects…” Da Silva said the statement is “baseless and appears calculated to portray my court submissions as reckless, when in fact they were firmly grounded in law and aimed at protecting the integrity of the electoral process.”

“My submissions to the Chief Justice were predicated on ensuring GECOM’s full compliance with the express provisions of the Constitution and election laws. There is nothing about insisting on constitutional compliance that would logically erode public confidence in GECOM — if anything, the opposite is true. Far from undermining credibility, my position was that GECOM must conduct registration and elections in a manner that upholds all constitutional requirements, thereby bolstering legitimacy.”

Further, the former GECOM Counsel said that he never advocated or implied that elections should be delayed. Contrarily, he said that the remedies he proposed to reconcile the residency requirement were operational: issuing separate ballots and separate lists for General vs. Regional elections (with the regional list undergoing the usual claims and objections process to filter out non-residents).

“These adjustments were practical and could be implemented without violating any election timeline. At no point did I suggest that an election should be postponed; indeed, I am acutely aware that any postponement beyond constitutional deadlines (apart from what the Constitution itself provides for) would itself be unlawful,” he said.

Additionally, Da Silva said he took pains to forewarn the Commission’s leadership about the potential consequences of every legal argument he put forward.

“Neither the Commission nor you, Madam Chair, ever indicated to me that my approach was erroneous or likely to cause harmful consequences. If there were genuine concerns on this front, they could have been addressed when I circulated my written submissions (5 March) or at any point before the oral hearings of the court matter on 17 and 28 March 2025. Instead, no feedback whatsoever was given by the Commission to suggest my arguments were deemed problematic. The only “consequence” that materialized was the CEO’s personal discomfort with my legal stance, which he voiced in his own press statement. But even then, when I brought that development to you, you counselled an internal resolution (discussed below), not that my arguments were wrong. Therefore, any after-the-fact claim that I acted recklessly or in error is insupportable. It appears to be a narrative invented to justify a predetermined outcome,” Da Silva stated.

In support of his arguments, DaSilva made it clear that his approach has been vindicated by the Court as the Chief Justice, in her ruling, dismissed the Applicant’s case, expressly relying on portions of his submissions in her reasoning.

“In fact, the Chief Justice adopted points that were raised exclusively in my submissions to conclude that the Applicant’s interpretation should not be accepted. The outcome of the case — GECOM’s favour — directly undermines any suggestion that I was arguing for the other side. The press release’s claim to the contrary is inexplicable and seems intended only to mislead readers into thinking I betrayed my client, which could not be further from the truth.”

Da Silva made it clear that he was never directed not to pursue the line of argument he took. “My mandate, as always, was to defend GECOM’s compliance with the law, which I did to the best of my ability and in which I succeeded,” he said.

In response to GECOM’s claim that he acted outside his scope, Da Silva made it clear that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Legal Officer’s role and responsibilities. He reminded that the CEO was not his “principal” but GECOM was.

“In other words, the CEO’s legal interests were not separate from GECOM’s; he is a functionary of the Commission. Thus, any implication that I owed exclusive loyalty to the CEO’s personal views, even if they diverged from the law or the Commission’s duty, is incorrect. Regardless, even if one were to treat the CEO as a “principal” for operational purposes, he gave me no instructions that I disobeyed. At no time did the CEO instruct me to refrain from making a particular argument.”

He reminded Justice Singh that she was his principal at all times.

“You, Madam Chair, as a former judge and the head of the Commission, were my de facto principal for matters of legal strategy. And, as I have documented, you agreed with my legal position throughout the pendency of the case. Thus, I was fully within the scope of my authority and duty in advancing the arguments that I did. I did not “favour” the Applicant; I favoured the law and GECOM’s compliance with it, which ultimately protected GECOM’s interests. The press release’s portrayal of this as a dereliction is not only unjustified but appears deliberately crafted to mislead the public into thinking I acted improperly.”

Meanwhile, in a terse letter to the CEO, Da Silva denounced all statements made against him.

“Your unilateral public denunciation has severely damaged my reputation by falsely suggesting professional misconduct and reckless disregard of duty. It implies I acted in opposition to my instructions, thereby misleading the public about my integrity and professional ethics. Such public mischaracterization by a senior official of your standing carries substantial weight, further exacerbating the damage to my professional standing,” Da Silva stated.

The attorney has given both the GECOM Chairperson and CEO an ultimatum to apologise and retract by April 22, 2025 or face legal action.

“I must still demand that you immediately and formally retract the false and misleading statements made in your press statement of 20 March 2025 and issue a public apology clearly acknowledging these inaccuracies and the harm caused. Should you fail to issue this retraction and apology by Tuesday, 22 April 2025, I will have no alternative but to pursue all available legal remedies, including initiating litigation against you personally and in your capacity as Chief Election Officer,” Da Silva said he told the CEO.

---

• Carol Smith Joseph, CEO Vishnu Persaud, GECOM’s Legal Officer, Guyana Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh

---