SAMUEL Sandy’s startling revelations on the Starting Point Podcast are more than just another political shift; they expose how ethnic politics and manipulation nearly destroyed Guyana’s democracy in 2020.
As a former PNCR Regional Vice-Chairman with first-hand knowledge of electoral fraud, Sandy’s choice to state publicly that “the APNU+AFC lost the elections” has significant implications for a nation preparing for the September 2025 polls.

Sandy’s testimony is particularly impactful because it comes from someone within the opposition, armed with what he describes as “dated photo evidence” showing discrepancies between the Statements of Poll he submitted and what Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo declared.

His account aligns disturbingly well with the findings of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, which concluded that senior GECOM officials made “shockingly brazen attempts” to steal the elections.
The commission’s report pointed to Keith Lowenfield, Roxanne Myers, and Clairmont Mingo as the main figures behind the attempts at electoral sabotage, confirming Sandy’s insider perspective.
What makes Sandy’s bravery even more notable is the personal cost he faced in a society where politics is divided along ethnic lines. Living in Golden Grove, a PNC stronghold, Sandy knew the social and political consequences of speaking out in his own community.

His struggle between “supporting the hope of our large section of society and that of personal integrity” shows the broader moral crisis created by ethnic politics when party loyalty overshadows democratic values.
The implications of Sandy’s revelations go beyond historical validation. As Guyana approaches the 2025 elections with significant oil wealth at stake, the nation stands at a critical turning point.
The opposition remains divided and seems stuck in the past regarding the lies of 2020. The recent breakdown of coalition talks between APNU and the AFC, marked by the AFC’s rejected proposal, shows an opposition more focused on power-sharing than addressing their core credibility issues.

Aubrey Norton’s refusal to recognise the truth about 2020, despite Sandy’s direct pleas, indicates an opposition leadership that seems more invested in grievance politics than in honest reflection.
Sandy’s support for the PPP/C, alongside other shifts from APNU, hints at potential changes in Guyanese politics.

His decision is more than political manoeuvring; it shows a growing understanding that Guyana’s democratic institutions and economic future cannot be secured by parties willing to undermine electoral processes.
As the country gears up for the September elections, Sandy’s choice of integrity over ethnic loyalty presents a path forward to move beyond the tribal politics that have long limited Guyana’s democratic potential.
The key question now is whether other Guyanese will follow Sandy’s lead, prioritising national interests over narrow ethnic ties as their oil-rich nation stands on the brink of remarkable prosperity.