-chair points to petition process
A Partnership For National Unity (APNU) Presidential Candidate Aubrey Norton yesterday expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the 2025 General Elections and is calling for a forensic audit of the results or a complete redo however the GECOM Chair has underlined that those matters would have to be addressed by way of a petition to the High Court.
While not addressing the letter’s specific concerns, GECOM issued a statement yesterday, pointing out that any request to abort the process can only be entertained by the High Court as per the Constitution and as such is not within the power of GECOM to do so.
APNU saw poor results at the elections and has been left in third place and without a victory in any of the 10 districts. All five of the international observer groups along with local groups have said that the elections ran smoothly.
In a letter titled “Urgent Request For A Forensic Audit And Or Aborting Of The 2025 Electoral Process” dated September 4 to Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, Norton made a request on behalf of APNU, for a forensic audit of electoral data, including electors’ votes, “entirely based on various egregious violations” of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Representation of the People Act (Cap. 1:03).
It went on to state that the party was in receipt of various pieces of evidence that demonstrated the “gross dereliction of duties and negligence” of Presiding Officers appointed by GECOM, which have been exacerbated by actions of the Commission resulting in “collusion, conspiracy, and deliberate abrogation of the will of the Guyanese people.”
The letter alleged the existence of numerous Statements of Polls (SOPs) that disclose conspicuous inconsistencies evidencing the following : i) the failure to have SOPs signed by the Presiding Officers at Polling Stations, contrary to s. 83 (8) of the Representation of the People Act (Cap. 1:03), for example, in the instance of ballot boxes (numbers 40711, 40728, 40792, 41003, 41005) among several others; ii) the failure of the elections officers to adhere to 84 (IA) of the Representation of the People Act (Cap. 1:03); iii) the failure to provide polling agents with accurate SOPs after the ballots have been certified and counted contrary to s.83 (1) (j), 83 (8) and 83 (9) of the Representation of the People Act (Cap. 1:03), for example, in the instance of ballot boxes (numbers 40736, 40835, 40857, 40949, 41048, 40910) and many others; and iv) the failure of the presiding officers to complete the SOPs in Form 23 A, contrary to s. 83(9) of the Representation of the People Act (Cap. 1:03), for example, in the instance of ballot boxes (numbers 40694, 40697, 40951, 414037) and others.
According to Norton, the aforementioned irregularities were brought to GECOM’s attention by APNU’s Assistant Agent (District 4 Sub-district 4), in the presence of local and international observer missions, during tabulation on September 2, and formed the basis for the request for recounts of certain districts of regions Four and Five.
He further noted that the approval of such recounts has revealed further “untenable” circumstances, since in the course of the recounts, it was revealed that GECOM officials failed to follow established procedure and were biased against APNU. The letter alleged that officials: a) arbitrarily adopted clearly biased positions in the determination of rejected ballots and without any legal authority whatsoever; whereas in the case of votes cast for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), GECOM officials accepted certain ballots, while ballots for APNU were rejected; and b) failed to announce the official stamp or six-digit number on each ballot paper during the current recount.
Emerged
It also stated: “It has also emerged that serious questions have arisen regarding the integrity of the votes cast, as there have been allegations of tampering with ballot boxes (including ballot boxes nos. EC80004, EC80009, EC80013, EC80022 and EC80019).”
Norton said that the demand for the electoral process to be wholly aborted comes in light of the report of the European Union Observer Mission which in his opinion, validates the APNU’s assertion that the national elections were not fair. The report, he said, noted the PPP/C had an undue advantage of incumbency, while the media landscape was highly politicised with disproportionate coverage in favour of the PPP/C. Additionally, it stated that the state media and government social media were used to amplify campaign messaging, blurring the lines between the State and the PPP/C.
Describing the erosion of confidence among Guyanese electors as “palpable,” Norton referred to the case of Joseph Hamilton v. Guyana Elections Commis-sion, Bharat Jagdeo and the Attorney General of Guyana 2001 Demerara No. 40-M, where Chief Justice Bernard stated, “It is hardly a secret that there have been significant irregularities, presumed or real, in the electoral process. It is also commendable that efforts have been made to reduce doubts which surround the process. However, serious doubts still remain, and the populace demands answers… the role of the Elections Commission and its staff is to take such action as appears necessary to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and any other acts of Parliament.”
The letter concluded with the APNU requesting that the GECOM Chairperson “intervene immediately to direct the Commission not to declare the election results before the completion of a forensic audit of electoral data, including electors’ votes and/or order that fresh elections are now due, in light of the circumstances.”
GECOM in response stated that it is currently awaiting the outcome of the recounts in Sub-District Four of District Four and the 77 ballot boxes in District Five, as requested by APNU, and that the recounts are being conducted in accordance with established electoral procedures. It stressed the importance of the Chief Election Officer (CEO) being able to ascertain the election results and present them to the Commission as mandated by Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. Those recounts were completed last evening.
It also reminded that the CEO’s role is to compile and present the results based on the declarations made by the respective Returning Officers, and to incorporate the findings of any legitimate recounts.
Regarding, APNU’s request for a forensic audit of the elections or the complete annulment of the current electoral process and the holding of fresh elections, the Commission pointed out that Article 163 of the Constitution of Guyana “explicitly stipulates” that “the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any question, whether generally or in any particular place, the election was lawfully conducted, or the result thereof has been or may have been affected by any unlawful act or omission.”
According to GECOM, Article 163 clearly outlines the legal procedure for addressing concerns about the lawfulness of the election or its results and as such, any claims of widespread irregularities necessitating a forensic audit or the annulment of the elections, beyond the scope of the ongoing recounts, would fall under the purview of the High Court by way of an election petition.
The statement reminded that GECOM’s primary responsibility is to conduct elections in a free, fair, and transparent manner, while adhering strictly to the laws of Guyana, while urging all stakeholders to allow the established legal and procedural mechanisms to run their course.
It reiterated that once the recounts are completed and the CEO presents the final results to the Commission, any party aggrieved by the outcome has the right to file an election petition to the High Court, in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution.
“We appreciate your patience as the recount process is finalized. As the Chairperson of GECOM I remain committed to upholding the integrity of the electoral process and will continue to operate within the confines of the law,” the statement added.
