The opposition commissioners and the work of GECOM

Jun 11, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – The opposition members of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) continue to slow the rate of implementation of GECOM’s adopted work plan for the holding of elections.

They cloak their actions as a fight for free and fair elections while they pretend to be bereft of any shame or remorse for their support of the transgressions that occurred following the 2020 elections.

Moreover, apart from throwing spanners in GECOM’s operations, the obstructionists would introduce issues that have either no relevance to GECOM’s work plan or have an uncanny resemblance to devices used in the past to secure votes.

Opposition commissioners consistently oppose GECOM seeking interpretations of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) or Constitutional provisions from the Chambers of the Attorney General.  They do so on the ground that the commission is an independent body and should not seek legal interpretations from a representative of government. When asked from whom such interpretations should be sought, the stock answer is that the commission should do so itself.

This behaviour becomes even more hardwired, if not small-minded, when interpretations of either ROPA or the Constitution are offered by the AG’s chamber but are rejected either as irrelevant or useless to the work of the commission. Mr. Alexander and company seek to advance their case on the ground that GECOM is under no obligation to accept interpretations of the Constitution from the AG’s chamber, and worse yet, they advance the ludicrous argument that the Attorney General should not be considered the ‘final arbiter’ on matters of law before the commission.

The opposition commissioners’ delaying tactics are further compounded by their failure to attend statutory meetings of the commission, resulting first, in the lack of a quorum, and secondly, in the postponement of decisions on critical issues that would serve to move the process towards the September 1, 2025 timeline.

Though it is not permitted by law, Opposition Commissioners have demanded that polling agents be allowed to vote by proxy on the ground that it favours disadvantaged polling agents, allowing them to vote at any other polling station other than the one where they are registered and listed to vote. The law allows political parties to identify a substitute polling agent to relieve another should the necessity arise.

Should the commission accede to this unreasonable demand, it could, in effect, result in the widespread use and possible abuse of proxies across the estimated 2,897 polling stations to be established across the 10 regions and 24 registration areas/sub-districts for the September 1 elections. Assuming ten political parties contest the upcoming elections, what is worrisome is the number of proxies opposition parties will request per polling station.

The PNC has a sordid track record when it comes to proxy voting. It is to be recalled that in elections held in 1961, under the PNC, 300 proxy votes were cast; in 1964 the number of proxy votes cast reached 6,635; in 1968 the numbers jumped to 19,287; in the 1970 (LGE) the number was 10,849; in 1973 general elections it reached over 29,00. In the 1978 and 1983 elections, this trend continued up to 1985 when, on the eve of the 1990 election, voting by proxy was severely restricted.

It is of grave concern that opposition commissioners are exerting pressure on GECOM to accede to this unreasonable and unacceptable demand for the expanded use of indirect/proxy voting as a device to generate voters supportive of them. It would be highly immoral if GECOM were to approve widespread abuse of proxy voting – a clear avenue for voter fraud.

Another demand by opposition commissioners is that prisoners be allowed to vote.

This demand is fraught with serious implications for national security as well as for public safety and the security of citizens.

The opposition claims that denying prisoners the right to vote violates their constitutional right. But this is a one-sided argument, since it does not take into consideration the rule of law whereby the courts of Guyana, following its deliberate judgement, denied the freedom of movement of persons to be incarcerated or on remand in less they endanger the life, limb or property of law-abiding citizens thus disturbing the peace and good order in society.

When I asked at the commission whether political parties would be admitted to all prison locations to campaign amongst prisoners, proffering who they should vote for, to hold meetings, and to distribute to prisoners election paraphernalia such as caps, jerseys, cups and pens, etc., Mr. Vincent Alexander grumbled, saying he will not return to the subject again.

In our country, every Guyanese know that there are persistent reports in mainstream media about various degrees of crimes committed almost on a daily basis in various parts of our country. The safety and security of citizens is of paramount importance; it is a troubling concern.

My point is that nothing must be done, including acquiescence to this opposition demand, to jeopardise the safety and security of the citizens of Guyana, nor the country’s national security.  Mr. Alexander is the longest-serving member of the commission, but it took him a very long time to become ‘conscious along the way’ and to be aware of the ‘right of prisoners to vote’ a right that was never granted before neither under Presidents Burnham, Hoyte, Granger nor under any PPP/C administration. Yet Alexander whimsically demands it now under the Irfaan Ali PPP/C administration. Something must be rotten in the ranks of the political opposition

Alexander has gone so far as to claim that prisoners, like all Guyanese, in or out of prison, should enjoy the same rights and privileges in an election. As far as he is concerned, the rule of law is of no consequence. It should be disregarded, and prisoners should be granted an exception on E-Day. By whom, he cannot say.

While the probability exists that there may be inmates who may have registered to vote at different locations but now find themselves incarcerated, for them to be freed on election day would require their movement from one electoral district to another.

How this is envisaged is an open question. Those who advocate in favour must provide the answers to the following questions;

Should prisoners be freed on Election Day, will they be on their own to find their way on their own to the respective electoral district and polling stations? Will prisoners have to find their way, say from Georgetown to Upper Mazaruni to vote, or from New Amsterdam to Georgetown? Or from Timehri to Mahaica? Or from Lusignan to Linden? Will each inmate have to be escorted individually? If so, by whom? Will they be free to roam till the close of the poll? Will their freedom on E-day be granted by the court, the Director of Prisons or the Ministry of Home Affairs? Who will be held responsible if prisoners do not return to prison?

Or, is it envisaged that polling stations will be established at each of the five prison locations? If so, do extant laws/ regulations allow for this? Do the Standing Orders for the Guyana Prison Service make provision for such facilities in a prison? Would the Attorney General have to ask parliament to pass special legislation to provide for this? Or is GECOM empowered to do so?

Will the release of prisoners to vote not place additional pressure on the Commissioner of Police to either deplete ranks assigned to be at polling stations or to find additional ranks to accompany each prisoner to vote? In addition to such an exercise, would this not require additional security measures inside and outside of each prison to avoid a prison break?

And worse yet, were the prisoners to be accompanied individually to where they have to vote, would this not result in a depletion of a full complement of prison officers to effectively man each prison to avoid making them vulnerable to security breaches?

The advocacy of this ‘wide awake in a dream’ proposal by opposition commissioners leaves ‘more questions than answers’ which they have failed to provide leaving GECOM with only one option; to accept the AG’s advice to maintain the status quo insofar as the matter is concerned and to move on inexorably to implement GECOM’S plan of action for the realisation of the September 1 elections.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

---

• Clement J. Rohee, GECOM, Guyana Elections, Irfaan Ali, Representation of the People Act

---