Dear Editor,
Having read about the approved allocation in the national budget for GECOM, I am penning this letter post haste without reference, or prejudice, to the opinions of my colleague commissioners, with whom I have not conferred.
I previously publicly stated that GECOM, the Commission per se, had been rendered comatose by the Chair by virtue of her conscious decision not to convene meetings of the Commission. According to her, as stated in her letter of October 10, 2025: “In relation to your request of summoning a meeting please be advised that I am guided by Article 161(3) (b) of the Constitution as to the composition of the Commission, which will be decided on the convening of Parliament”. She virtually arrogated to herself the authority to interpret the Constitution (a function of the Judiciary), and acted based on her interpretation. She subsequently indicated to the elected Leader of the Opposition that it was not within her jurisdiction to determine the composition of the Commission. Yet, no prior or subsequent meeting was held as GECOM was held hostage by her earlier pronouncements.
As a consequence of that action, there was the submission of the proposed 2026 budgetary estimates, for GECOM, among other acts, without the imprimatur of the Commission. This resulted in items such as digital registration and digital identification (biometrics), as promised, apparently not being considered, and definitely not proposed, for GECOM`s 2026 budgetary provisions, and subsequently not presented for appropriation by the Parliament.
The fundamental issue is that the actions of the Chairperson resulted in the Commission`s constitutional mandate and authority being usurped, under her watch, by a body other than the Commission, as a result of her act of wrongfully decommissioning the Commission.
It should be noted that even if the Chair is right in her interpretation of the Constitution, the circular for the preparation of the budget predated the convening of the 13th Parliament, and the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition. Hence, in no circumstance was there basis for the decommissioning of the Commission before November 3 when the Parliament convened, or more so January 26, 2026 when the Leader of the Opposition was elected.
It is my humble opinion that the Chairperson`s conscious act of decommissioning the Commission, with effect from September 7, especially at a time when some reports on the results of the elections were not yet submitted to the sitting Commission; public declarations of the results were not done; results were not yet gazetted; and essential functions still required the attention of the Commission, along with there being no legal basis for decommissioning the Commission, in addition to her facilitation of the usurpation of the functions of the Commission, is tantamount to “misbehaviour”. Such misbehaviour should result in the invocation of Article 225 of the Constitution, for the purpose of removal from office.