Guyana Elections Body Dispute: Why a Former Speaker Says Commissioners Must Resign
Guyana · Governance
Key Facts
—A new opposition leader After the September 1, 2025 elections, the We Invest in Nationhood party became the main opposition, not the bloc that nominated the sitting election commissioners.
—Constitutional gap A 2001 constitutional change removed the clause that ended the tenure of election commissioners after every election, making their appointments effectively permanent.
—The three commissioners Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin, and Desmond Trotman were nominated by the former main opposition and have refused to step down, citing their lawful appointments.
—No removal mechanism Attorney General Anil Nandlall has stated that the constitution provides no current provision for removing commissioners simply because the opposition leadership has changed.
—Calls for court action With no political agreement in sight, the government’s top legal advisor says the only way to resolve the dispute is for the parties to take it to court.
Former Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran has declared that Guyana election commissioners have a moral obligation to resign when the political force that appointed them is no longer in power.
The moral case for resignation
Ralph Ramkarran, a former Speaker of the National Assembly and a Senior Counsel, argues that it is “morally imperative” and a standard political practice for opposition-nominated commissioners at the Guyana Elections Commission to resign when the person responsible for initiating their appointment is no longer in office. Writing in Kaieteur News on July 15, 2026, he insisted that the affected commissioners “ought to resign or offer their resignations” because they no longer reflect the new main opposition party in Parliament.
His argument centers on the three incumbent opposition-nominated commissioners: Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin, and Desmond Trotman. All three were nominated by the A Partnership for National Unity/People’s National Congress Reform bloc, which was the previous main opposition.
Ramkarran has separately stated that these commissioners are “not morally entitled to their seats” after the general and regional elections of September 1, 2025, because they do not mirror the electorate’s current will.
A political landscape reshaped by the 2025 election
The September 1, 2025 elections redrew Guyana’s 65-seat National Assembly. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic won 36 seats, while the newly formed We Invest in Nationhood party secured 16 seats, making it the main opposition.
The previous opposition force, APNU, dropped to 12 seats, and the Forward Guyana Movement gained one seat. This shift created a gap between the Assembly’s composition and the commission’s membership.
WIN leader Azruddin Mohamed, poised to become Leader of the Opposition, has publicly urged Alexander, Corbin, and Trotman to “do the honourable thing and resign” so his nominees can serve. He argues that the composition of the elections commission must mirror the will of the electorate.
The three commissioners, however, declined to meet Mohamed about their future, and WIN remains on record insisting that democratic legitimacy requires the opposition side of the commission to reflect the current configuration of the National Assembly.
Why the constitution blocks automatic removal
Ramkarran himself acknowledges that, under the current constitution, there is no straightforward mechanism to remove sitting election commissioners simply because the opposition leadership has changed. He points to a key historical shift: before 2001, the life of the Elections Commission ended after every election and commissioners were required to vacate their posts.
That provision was removed during constitutional changes in 2001, effectively making GECOM a permanent commission whose members do not automatically demit office.
Commissioner Vincent Alexander has publicly defended his position, asserting that appointments are “permanent as per the Constitution” and that replacements are only possible if someone dies, resigns, or is removed for sickness, mental incapacity, or misbehaviour. Political analysts link this protection to Article 225(2) of the Guyana Constitution.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall has also weighed in, stating that opposition factions will have to “take it to court” because the constitution currently has no provision for removing commissioners in these circumstances.
Why this matters for residents and investors
The integrity of the Guyana Elections Commission is fundamental to investor confidence and democratic stability in one of the world’s fastest-growing oil economies. A prolonged governance dispute over the body that administers elections can signal political deadlock to international partners and rating agencies, potentially affecting the ease of doing business and the predictability of the regulatory environment.
For expats and foreign investors, the dispute raises questions about how the country resolves institutional conflicts that were not anticipated when the constitution was last amended.
Analysts at the Guyana Business Journal note that the system was not designed to absorb the arrival of a “genuine third force” like WIN in the Assembly, and it is precisely the distance between the Assembly’s composition and the commission’s makeup that lies at the center of the impasse. Ramkarran’s wider constitutional commentary warns that the supremacy of the constitution has been subverted in Guyana by a culture of “constitutional convenience.” He argues that reform is needed to re-establish clear term limits or post-election resignation requirements for commissioners, returning to the pre-2001 practice where the commission’s life ended after each election.
The path forward: courts or constitutional reform
With no political consensus, attention is turning to the courts. A legal expert quoted by Demerara Waves concluded, “There is only one way out of this: go to the court.” Attorney General Nandlall concurs that the only way for the President to act on a new Opposition Leader’s request for fresh commissioners is if a vacancy exists, which at present it does not.
The commissioners themselves maintain they are lawfully appointed and can only be replaced if they resign, die, vacate office, or if the constitution or law is amended.
Ramkarran’s solution points toward constitutional reform. He argues that removing the commissioners would require a constitutional amendment in the absence of broader reform, a reminder that the pre-2001 automatic post-election resignation mechanism was deliberately erased.
For now, the dispute remains unresolved, exposing what Ramkarran and other commentators describe as a structural flaw in how Guyanese democracy handles shifts in political power.
More: Latin America news in English, every day from The Rio Times.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Ralph Ramkarran and why is his opinion on the elections commission significant?
Ralph Ramkarran is a former Speaker of the National Assembly of Guyana and a Senior Counsel, a highly respected legal designation. His opinion carries weight because of his deep knowledge of Guyana’s constitutional history, including the 2001 reforms that changed how election commissioners are appointed and removed.
Why are Guyana’s election commissioners being asked to resign now?
After the September 1, 2025 elections, a new party called We Invest in Nationhood became the main opposition, replacing the bloc that nominated the three current opposition commissioners. Critics argue the commission no longer reflects the political will of the electorate, and prominent figures like Ramkarran say the commissioners have a moral obligation to step down.
Can the President or the government legally force the commissioners to resign?
No. Under the current Guyanese constitution, commissioners serve until they resign, die, or are removed for specific causes such as mental incapacity or misbehaviour. Attorney General Anil Nandlall has said there is no constitutional provision to remove them simply because the opposition leadership has changed, and the dispute would likely need to be settled in court.
Sources: Kaieteur News – Moral imperative, standard practice for GECOM Commissioners to resign after change in office – Ramkarran, ConstitutionNet / News Source Guyana – Removing Guyana’s election commissioners would require constitutional amendment, former speaker argues, Demerara Waves – No vacancy at GECOM for president to act on opposition leader’s request, Stabroek News – GECOM commissioners’ appointments permanent as per the Constitution – Alexander, Guyana Business Journal – GECOM’s opposition seats, the arithmetic of a fair allocation, and the reform the moment invites, Kaieteur News – ‘Take it to court’ – AG tells warring opposition factions over GECOM seats
Connected Coverage
Guyana Granted Uranium Rights in 2024. The Country Found Out in 2026.
Guyana Hardwires Local Manufacturing into the Oil Supply Chain
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times