Dear Editor,
The position articulated by Mr. Vincent Alexander and his fellow opposition-appointed commissioners of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), as reported in Stabroek News on February 2, 2026, in an article captioned “Opposition-appointed GECOM Commissioners say no thanks …..” warrants firm rejection of these three gentlemen.
At the heart of this matter is not venue, personality, or political discomfort, but constitutional principle. Articles 161 and 162 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana are explicit: opposition-nominated members of GECOM derive their authority through the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, tendered after meaningful consultation with non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly. That authority is therefore representative, not personal, and must reflect the current composition and democratic will of the Parliament.
I am convinced in my conviction that the APNU as the minority of the opposition forces must have a representative in GECOM at this pinnacle forum, but not all three. Plus with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed expressing no confidence in the current occupiers of the seat, then it is clearly a principled and ethical road to resolve this matter; Mr. Vincent Alexander, Mr. Charles Corbin and Mr Desmond Trotman must resign and if they are still interested in the roles, re-submit themselves for consideration by the Combined Opposition after they are allowed to sit down and consider their collective opposition strategy for GECOM. But to hold on the position without the confidence of the Leader of the Opposition behind them is nothing else but low class and disrespectful to the spirit and intent of the Constitution in fostering their own personal agenda at the expense of the nation. Shameful behaviour from these elders.
The contention advanced by Mr. Alexander—that questions concerning the status and tenure of commissioners are immune from political or constitutional scrutiny and can only arise through narrow legislative or judicial intervention—misstates the issue. The question before the country is not one of convenience or negotiation, but whether the continued occupancy of these positions, absent the confidence of the constitutionally recognised Leader of the Opposition and the majority of opposition Members of Parliament, satisfies the test of democratic legitimacy.
Public confidence in GECOM does not rest solely on the legality of appointments in the abstract; it rests equally on the constitutional logic of representation, accountability, and trust. Where that confidence is eroded, it is entirely proper—indeed necessary—for the Leader of the Opposition to seek engagement and clarity from the Courts, including on matters of representation.
It is therefore untenable for commissioners to assert a permanent or unassailable mandate divorced from the evolving political and parliamentary reality. The Constitution does not contemplate such insulation. GECOM is a constitutional body, but it is not a self-perpetuating one.
Given the gravity of the constitutional questions raised—particularly as they relate to representation, continuity, and the integrity of the electoral management framework—this matter must be resolved definitively and authoritatively. It is precisely the type of dispute that belongs before the Caribbean Court of Justice, as Guyana’s final appellate and constitutional court.
Only a clear judicial pronouncement can settle the competing interpretations now before the nation and restore public confidence in the Commission. Until then, attempts to dismiss these concerns as political or to avoid engagement on their substance do a disservice to constitutional governance and democratic norms. The WIN Party has to act maturely on this matter and must approach the courts or else all future generations of our people will be saddled with this type of low-class, money hungry and unethical behaviour. This feels like a Mistress holding on the other people’s husbands using even blackmail as a trick to preserve the monthly financial transfer from the estate to her personal pocket even though the family wants nothing to do with her. Low-class!
Guyana deserves clarity, legitimacy, and confidence in its electoral institutions. Anything less undermines the very foundations of representative democracy.