THE detailed elucidation by the Guyana Elections Commission in announcing the date for the September 1, 2025 elections should put to rest whatever skepticism existed regarding the propriety of the constitutional process leading to President Irfaan Ali’s proclamation.

The accusations made at the May 27 press conference that the Chairman of the GECOM unilaterally advised the President seem not just unsubstantiated but to reflect a chilling misunderstanding of how constitutional democracy is supposed to work.

GECOM’s step-by-step account provided a textbook illustration of institutional accountability and constitutional compliance. When President Ali phoned Chairman Justice Claudette Singh on May 23 to ask whether the Commission would be in a position to hold elections within the three-month constitutional timeframe, she did what any accountable head of an institution would have done: She asked for time to speak with the Chief Election Officer before answering.

This is not unilateral action; this is deliberative, consultative governance of the highest order. The fact that the Chairman moved to consult immediately with CEO Vishnu Persaud, who had already prepared a work plan in the eventuality of early elections, speaks to the kind of institutional readiness and consideration that ought to be praised, rather than criticised.

The mixing up of the “work plan” and the “schedule of activities” is seemingly semantic and not substantive, but has been used by the opposition to attack the credibility of GECOM.

The Commission’s reasoning that the CEO had drawn up a draft work plan that indicated elections were possible by August 25, 2025, within the constitutional three-month timeframe, if preparations began on June 1 gives the Chairman’s recommendation to the President its constitutional and practical basis.

Such a level of planning, along with the previous assurances expressed by GECOM of confidence in its ability to produce the 2025 elections hitch-free, must be regarded as institutional capacity; not a cause for suspicion.

What is revealed in this opposition scandal is not proof of institutional overreach, but a worrying trend of seeking to politicise what ought to be uncontroversial constitutional processes. GECOM has been readying itself for the 2025 elections for months now, with Commissioner Sase Gunraj pointing out in January that preparations were already being made for recruitment, training, and procurement.

The Commission’s track record of electoral readiness, coupled with the CEO’s forward planning and the Chairman’s appropriate consultation process, offers a sound basis for public trust in the September 1 poll date.

President Ali’s address at the 59th Independence Flag-Raising Ceremony in Berbice, and its prompt reaffirmation by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, indicate a government confident both in the constitutional process as well as in the readiness for elections of GECOM.

Instead of indulging in unverified speculation about unilateral action, the Guyanese people should turn their attention to the real issues which will shape the election campaign ahead.

As President Ali seeks a second term on the platform of additional economic change, job creation, tax reductions, unity and respect for rule of law, the true democratic contest ought to be regarding policy agendas and governance records, not procedure-based conspiracy theories.

GECOM’s institutional preparedness and support for the Constitution ensure the stability required for this essential democratic practice, precisely as envisioned by the Constitution and precisely what Guyanese people must be able to expect.