Dear Editor,
It may be recalled that three Commissioners of GECOM abstain-ed from approving the results of the 2025 elections. They contended that to have given legitimacy to those results would have been the endorsement of constitutional infringements since the electoral process did not meet the legitimate expectations a la the disenfranchisement of voters (prisoners, party agents who worked outside of their polling divisions, off-shore workers); the conscious retention of thousands of dead persons on the voters list, both overseas and locally known deceased persons; among many other procedural and substantive infringements, all of which are verifiable; were acknowledged; but deemed by GECOM to be beyond its scope of rectification. Notably, the Chairper-son of GECOM expressly presided over all of the aforementioned and much more.
But worse was yet to come. The Chairperson in breach of the provisions for the ascertainment of the results: sections 96 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act, never presented to the Commission the report on the results of the Regional Elections and never publicly declared any of the results, as statutorily required.
The worst has since eventuated. The Chairperson has since unilaterally de-commissioned the Commis-sion. Avoiding being held accountable for the aforementioned infringement, she determined that the Commissioners who enquired about those infringements were no longer Commissioners and as such the Commission was not duly constituted based on her interpretation of Article 163 of the Constitution. Albeit, in response to our enquiry, the gazetted results, though not publicly declared as required by law, were sent to us along with the notice of dismissal.
Other than her having no such authority, to de-commission the Commission, in any circumstance, the following should be noted: her act of omission (not presenting the regional results to the Commission and not publicly declaring any of the results) preceded the finalization of the results and cannot be excused on the grounds that the Commission was not properly constituted. And, if her interpretation of Article 163 is proven to be right, then by the same token by which she unilaterally seeks to dismiss the Commissioners she should demit office and not unilaterally preside over GECOM, to wit approve payments, such as huge bonuses to the CEO.
In any circumstance, GECOM`s report for elections 2025 should be presented to the incumbent Commis-sioners as well as they should conduct the evaluation of the elections, all of which the Chair has sought to stymie by her unauthorised act of disemboweling the Commission that presided over the 2025 elections, and the removal of the Commissioners who should be following through on reports like that of the European Union observer mission, which she ostensibly received on behalf of the Commission.