GECOM rejects anonymous staff allegations

Dear Editor,

We refer to the letter published in your Wednesday, 1st April, 2026 edition under the caption “Cherry-picked rules, neglected staff: GECOM under scrutiny.”

It has become increasingly evident that there is a deliberate and sustained effort to tarnish the integrity of both the Chairman and the Chief Election Officer and, by extension, the Commission.

This conclusion is drawn from the publication of three successive letters, purportedly authored by “Concerned Employees,” all of which advance a series of allegations without providing any credible evidence or specific examples. The apparent objective is to portray the Chief Election Officer as a tyrannical administrator, allegedly supported by the Chairman an assertion that is wholly unsubstantiated.

While internal considerations have allowed us to reasonably narrow the likely source of these letters to a small number of persistently delinquent staff possibly acting individually or in concert—this response is not intended to target any individual. Rather, we consider it our duty to provide clarity on how staff relations and human resource matters are managed within the Commission.

In that regard, we wish to highlight the following:

1. GECOM operates as a structured, hierarchical organisation comprising several divisions, each headed by a senior manager. All subordinate staff report through this established chain of command and not directly to the chief election officer.
2. Under the leadership of former Chairman Dr. Steve Surujbally, the Commission formally delegated authority to the Chief Election Officer to recruit and manage staff below the level of Senior Manager (Scale 9).
3. Like many public institutions, GECOM continues to address ongoing human resource challenges. These include issues related to attendance and punctuality, substandard output—particularly among long-serving field registration staff—and a persistent resistance to modernized work practices by some employees. All such matters are managed strictly in accordance with the Public Service Rules.
4. The Chief Election Officer has consistently maintained an open-door policy, encouraging all staff to raise concerns freely. This invitation has been reiterated in multiple forums, including senior management meetings, staff engagements, and training sessions. To date, no staff member—including the alleged authors of these letters—has utilized this opportunity to formally raise concerns.
5. Additionally, the Chief Election Officer has explicitly invited staff to disclose instances of victimization or discrimination during general meetings. No such concerns have been raised. To further strengthen transparency, a Provisional Grievance Procedure was circulated in February this year to provide a formal mechanism for lodging complaints. To date, no submissions has been received under this process.
6. Claims of unjust denial of leave are entirely unfounded. On the contrary, the Chief Election Officer, with the Chairman’s approval, has demonstrated considerable leniency, including granting extended no-pay leave to facilitate personal development pursuits unrelated to GECOM’s operations. It is noteworthy that one such beneficiary has been among those few most resistant to adherence to established rules.

Staff relations at GECOM have always been governed by the Public Service Rules and policy directives issued by the Commission. It is the responsibility of the Chief Election Officer to ensure compliance with these frameworks, failing which he would be held accountable.

We have deliberately refrained from addressing the fragmented and repetitive allegations in detail, as doing so would lend undue credibility to claims that are clearly devoid of merit and driven by individuals unwilling to conform to established standards of professionalism and accountability.

The Commission remains steadfast in its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of staff relations while ensuring adherence to the rules and values that underpin effective public service.

The Chief Election Officer continues to be fully accessible and willing to address any legitimate concern brought forward through the appropriate channels.

Going forward, the Commission will not engage in exchanges with anonymous or unverified sources. We instead encourage all staff to utilise the established internal mechanisms designed to address concerns constructively and professionally.