HGP Nightly News – A procedural and constitutional debate has emerged following the intention expressed by the newly elected Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, to seek the replacement of the current opposition-nominated commissioners on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
Mr. Mohamed, whose party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), now holds the majority of opposition seats in the National Assembly, recently announced plans to formally request that the three commissioners appointed under the auspices of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) vacate their positions.
In response, PNC/R Leader and APNU figure Aubrey Norton has suggested that prior consultation would have been a prudent course of action. At a recent press conference, Mr. Norton emphasized the importance of opposition unity and adherence to legal frameworks, stating it would have been “both sensible and principled” for the new Opposition Leader to engage APNU before pursuing the replacement of the commissioners.
“It does not look well if you as an opposition be running to GECOM for them to tell you that they cannot do anything. It shows you are not doing your homework,” Mr. Norton commented, referencing the constitutional provisions governing the Commission. The core of the dispute hinges on the interpretation of constitutional articles related to GECOM.
APNU representatives cite Article 161, which outlines the appointment process involving the President and the Opposition Leader, and Articles 225 and 226, which detail qualifications for office, temporary appointments, and the specific conditions required for removal.
They argue that GECOM is a permanent commission and that its members cannot be removed without a change in law or for the specific causes enumerated in the Constitution. Recent reports indicating that GECOM’s Chairperson, Retired Justice Claudette Singh, acknowledged a procedural capacity to decommission the opposition-nominated members have added a layer of complexity to the discussion.
Member of Parliament Ganesh Mahipaul provided further context, noting the historical circumstances of each commissioner’s appointment, some during periods of opposition and one during a term in government, and reinforcing the position that the appointing parties lack a unilateral power of revocation.
The situation presents a significant test for opposition coordination and highlights the intricate balance between political representation and constitutional permanence within Guyana’s electoral governance body. The outcome of Mr. Mohamed’s intended actions is likely to set a precedent for future transitions in parliamentary opposition.
