Replying toGECOM is comatose due to the Chair's actionsLetter 2 of 2

GECOM Chairperson has not acted unlawfully

November 14, 20263 min read

Conversation

2 letters, Nov 12 to 14

Vincent Alexander
GECOM is comatose due to the Chair's actions
Kiskadee Watch, Nov 12
replied 2 days later
Vishnu Prashad
GECOM Chairperson has not acted unlawfully (this letter)
Kiskadee Watch, Nov 14

Dear Editor,

I write to reject, firmly and on the record, the position advanced by Mr. Vincent Alexander in his letter of November 9, 2026, titled “‘Comatose’ GECOM needs urgent judicial or legislative intervention.”^[1] The letter is long on assertion and short on proof, and it merits a direct response on its principal points.

A preliminary observation. If the Commission is indeed “comatose,” one might reasonably ask why one of its most vocal critics is seeking to stay within it rather than distancing himself from it. That is a question of consistency, not of law, and I leave it to Mr. Alexander to answer. I make no allegation of financial impropriety; but why are persons drawing funds from the Treasury purporting to be Commissioners when the Leader of the Opposition, the Constitutional Office Holder has made it clear they do not represent the Opposition on the Commission.^[2] This is a matter for the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, and is best addressed through the proper audit and parliamentary mechanisms. The call for judicial intervention is similarly misplaced as a rhetorical device: the courts are open to any party with standing, and it is not for a newspaper column to direct the judiciary’s docket.

I turn to the substantive points.

The Chair has not “frozen” the Commission unlawfully.

The Chairperson relied on Article 161(3)(b) of the Constitution^[3], which vests the question of the composition of the Commission in the National Assembly. Where a genuine constitutional question arises over the standing of Opposition-appointed commissioners — a question the Leader of the Opposition himself has contested — it is not “spurious” for the Chair to seek resolution through the constitutional mechanism rather than to convene a Commission whose membership is contested. Mr. Alexander may disagree with that judgement. Disagreement is not illegality.

The diplomatic meeting was proper and within the Chair’s remit.

Heads of mission are accredited to engage with state institutions on electoral matters. The Chairperson and Chief Election Officer are the lawful custodians of GECOM’s administrative continuity. A meeting with the diplomatic corps to discuss the conduct of elections^[4] is neither usurpation nor evidence of a “decommissioned” body. Nor does it displace the role of any legitimately appointed commissioner. On the question of legitimacy, I would simply observe that a commissioner whose appointment is contested by the very authority said to have made it occupies, at best, an uncertain title — intrusus sine titulo — and that uncertainty is precisely what the constitutional and judicial process exists to resolve. The door is open for Mr. Alexander to approach the Courts, why is he shy?

The “comatose” label is a rhetorical device, not a legal finding.

Mr. Alexander lists alleged consequences — budget preparation, biometrics, local government elections, manuals, vacancies — as though they were established facts flowing from a single cause. They are not. Several of these matters fall within the CEO’s administrative authority and the Commission’s secretariat, and the Chair remains lawfully empowered to act. If Mr. Alexander believes the Chair has acted ultra vires, the remedy is a court of law, where he who asserts must prove. Again the doors of the Law Court are very open for Mr. Alexander to lodge his complaint; why is he shy?

The call for legislative intervention is a demand to rewrite the rules mid-game.

Mr. Alexander does not specify the legislation he seeks. If he has proposals, the proper course is to put them to the political parties represented in Parliament for consideration. Until the law changes, GECOM remains an independent commission, and the Constitution deliberately insulates it from direction by other persons or authorities. Legislative intervention of the kind implied would undermine the very independence his letter purports to defend.

The real threat to GECOM’s credibility is the politicisation of its internal disputes.

Mr. Alexander’s letter does not strengthen GECOM; it invites external actors to take sides in an internal constitutional disagreement. That is precisely how electoral commissions lose public confidence. The appropriate course is to resolve contested membership questions through the constitutional organs and the courts. Again why is Mr. Alexander shy of the Courts?

I therefore reject Mr. Alexander’s position in its entirety. The Chairperson has not acted unlawfully, the diplomatic engagement was proper, and the “comatose” framing is unsupported. GECOM’s integrity will be preserved not by inflammatory letters, but by following lawful processes.

Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Prashad

References

GECOM is comatose due to the Chair's actions

Mr. Vincent Alexander · November 9, 2026

Opposition Gecom Commissioners Do Not Represent Party Interests But National Interest - Vincent Alexander - HGPTV - Guyana's Nightly News and Entertainment Channel

www.hgptv.com, Jun 25, 2026

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Opposition-appointed Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Commissioner Vincent Alexander has argued that the country’s constitution deliberately insulates sitting commissioners from removal by political parties — including the party that nominated them — in order to preserve the independence and integrity of the electoral body. Alexander, who is among the commissioners whose positions have been placed in question following the new Leader of the Opposition’s stated intention to recall and replace opposition-nominated GECOM commissioners, made the remarks in an interview on Politics 101 with host Dr. David Hinds. Alexander has a direct personal interest in the legal question he is addressing — his own tenure as commissioner is among those potentially affected by the opposition leader’s stated intentions. His argument is presented here as his legal interpretation, not as settled law. The Constitutional Framework Alexander said the 2000-2001 constitutional amendments fundamentally changed the nature of GECOM by making it a permanent institution. “A 2000 amendment provided for a permanent commission,” he said. “In other words, there is no expiry date of the commission and there is no term specified for the commission.” He noted that prior to 2001, electoral commissions in Guyana were temporary bodies, convened specifically for the duration of an election cycle and dissolved three months after balloting. The modern framework, he said, was deliberately designed to create an independent permanent institution — not one subject to reconstitution after each election or each change in political leadership. “Guyana is a very fractured place, a very partisan place, and therefore we seem not to be able to see that the intent is for a commission to be independent,” Alexander said. Representatives vs Nominees Alexander argued that a fundamental legal distinction exists between a political representative and a constitutional nominee — and that GECOM commissioners fall into the second category, not the first. He explained that a representative, by definition, holds a particular interest and is accountable to whoever they represent. A nominee, by contrast, is an appropriate person appointed to fill an office — but is not bound to the nominating party once appointed. On this basis, he argued that there is no mechanism within the current law that allows a nominating political party or an opposition leader to unilaterally withdraw a commissioner. Under the constitution, he said, commissioners can only be removed under strictly defined legal conditions — medical incapacity, resignation, or proven misconduct — none of which are triggered by a change in political leadership or a shift in party preferences. ... The story notes that while Alexander’s position represents a significant strand of legal commentary on the question, other legal commentators and political observers have argued that provisions for the removal of commissioners do exist. The transcript acknowledges that “some pundits argue that there are provisions for the removal of the commissioners.”

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Quo-Warranto Petitions Challenging KPSC Appointments, Upholds Executive Power Under Article 316. Court Rules That Article 316 is a Complete Code and No Rules are Required for Appointing Chairman and Members of the State Public Service Commission.

lawtext.in, Nov 14, 2026

Two public interest litigations were filed by Shashi Prasad Gandhi and T. Narasimhamurthy challenging the appointments of the Chairman and members of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC). The petitioners sought writs of quo-warranto to quash the notification appointing respondent No.3 as Chairman and to prohibit respondents 4 to 14 from exercising their duties as members. The primary grievance was that the State Government had not framed any rules for such appointments, rendering them arbitrary and lacking transparency. They contended that the appointments were made by the Chief Minister without due process, in violation of Article 316 of the Constitution and contrary to the Supreme Court's directions in State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok. The petitioners argued that the lack of qualifications for non-official members and absence of scrutiny undermined the institution's credibility. They also referred to the P.C. Hota Committee recommendations urging reforms in civil service appointments. The respondents, including the State Government and the appointees, opposed the petitions. The Advocate General submitted that Article 316 of the Constitution is a complete code and does not require the framing of any rules or regulations. He distinguished Article 324(2), which mandates law for Election Commissioners, and argued that Chapter II of the Constitution deliberately leaves the appointment power to the executive. It was further contended that the burden was on the petitioners to establish the ineligibility of the appointees, which they failed to discharge. Some members had already retired, and no criminal antecedents or unfitness was pleaded. The petitioners also lacked bona fides, having not complied with court orders to file affidavits. The High Court accepted the respondents' submissions. It held that Article 316 provides a complete mechanism for appointments to the State Public Service Commission and no statutory rules are necessary. The absence of such rules did not vitiate the appointments. The court emphasized that in a quo-warranto proceeding, the petitioner must prove the appointee's ineligibility, and mere procedural lacunae or lack of transparency are insufficient. The petitioners failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed, and the appointments of the Chairman and members of KPSC were upheld. ... C) Constitutional Law - Interpretation - Comparison of Article 316 with Article 324 - The court noted that unlike Article 324(2) which requires a law for appointment of Election Commissioners, no such provision exists under Articles 315 to 320, indicating that the Constitution deliberately entrusted the appointment power to the executive without legislative intervention. (Para 7(b)) ... Both writ petitions were dismissed. The appointments of respondent No.3 as Chairman and respondent Nos.4 to 14 as members of KPSC were upheld. ... Article 316 of the Constitution is a self-contained provision governing appointments to the State Public Service Commission, and no statutory rules are required for such appointments. In a quo-warranto proceeding, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the appointee's ineligibility; mere allegations of procedural irregularity or lack of transparency are insufficient. ... Article 316 of the Constitution of India does not specify any qualification for the members of KPSC except providing ten years of experience in the Government service in respect of official members and only a goodwill of the Government in respect of non-official members Chapter II of Constitution of India consisting of Articles 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320 is a ... Code

GECOM Chair says no approval was needed from other Commissioners to meet with Diplomats - News Source Guyana

newssourcegy.com, Nov 10, 2026

Source

GECOM Chairperson has not acted unlawfully in Kiskadee Watch, November 14, 2026