I AM very disappointed with the quality of the data that is contained in the 77-page European Observers Report on the 2025 elections. I am even more shocked that the leaders of the EU would be comfortable with releasing this illogical and nonsensical report to the public. There is much I could point out that is wrong with the report, from its methodology to its findings to its recommendations.
I will not labour the public with my analyses except to point out that the EU Report is short on facts and truth and big on lies, perceptions, and delusions of a grander nature. Its report appears to have been drafted and edited by one-sided and biased individuals who are political and possess a deep-seated interest in the We Invest in Nationhood Party (WIN), the A Partnership for National Unity Party (APNU), and the Forward Guyana Movement Party (FGM).
The People’s Progressive Party (PPP), dubbed the unruly guy, was certainly dealt a bad hand in this report. Even though the party’s Executive and General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo complained ad nauseam over several chilling occurrences, the observers just paid them no mind. In fact, they completely ignored these complaints to the point that they were omitted in the final report.
I stand by President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s criticism of the report. I strongly believe that he was way too soft and diplomatic about the EU report. I would not be so kind to the EU’s report because I think it is quite absurd that they would seek to lecture us on elections when they have so many problems with respect to their laws, legislation and election offences occurring in EU territories.
In fact, electoral malpractices in the EU are diverse and complex, ranging from traditional issues such as the misuse of administrative resources and voter coercion within member states to modern threats like foreign interference and disinformation campaigns across the entire bloc. It is none of my business, but I am just saying it like it is.
Additionally, the EU report did have one aspect of its analysis correct. The elections were peaceful and well-run, with election day and tabulation processes administered efficiently, since voters were able to cast their ballots in an orderly environment. It is an undisputed fact that those elections were fair and effectively run. But that was omitted from the EU observers’ report.
And, while I could accept the observation that the legal framework was broadly adequate and despite some positive recent reforms, persistent gaps remain in party regulation and campaign finance, I do not accept its criticisms of the media environment that prevailed.
Firstly, the Stabroek and Kaieteur newspapers were anything but above board and independent in their coverage before, during and after the election cycle. The Guyana Times stood out as fair and offering its readers sound information and stories on the government, the main opposition, PNC-APNU, and WIN.
Any sane and objective observer would tell you that SN was far more hostile to the government and the PPP in terms of its coverage and portrayal of news pieces, opinions, columns, and cartoons. It was not practising ethical and fair journalism. And when the SN’s duplicity, hypocrisy, double standards, and fake news agenda were exposed by the PPP GS, they cowered and became silent at different points. The KN was, to a lesser extent, fairer and had less trash passed off as news. The findings in the report are comical, to say the least.
For the broadcast media, Capitol News and HGPTV Nightly News could be deemed to be carrying out the old-PNC and opposition agenda. The PPP was not afforded fair and balanced coverage in these news media. They were not balanced, impartial, and fair. How come the EU observers missed that in their final report? A BLIND person could see and know how they tried to influence the electorate and block out the PPP message of hope and delivery.
Even the Demerara Waves, News Room, and Inews were fair and balanced when compared to other sites. The EU report insulted the intelligence of voters and Guyanese when it singled out News Source for positive attention. What? That news is inherently opposition – the APNU and WIN-focused. They are not balanced and fair. It appears that the observers bounced their heads and their meditation scattered. No facts are included.
And no political party contesting the 2025 polls inquired about spots or the availability of time and space in the State Media. No one was denied access. The issue of access to the state media, therefore, simply could not be observed. Yet, still, the campaign speeches and activities of all parties were adequately and sufficiently covered by the NCN and Chronicle Newspapers. The DPI continued to cover the president, ministers of the government, government projects, and such, as it should.
A few journalists were indeed shown some tough love. I disagree that the PPP or even APNU “singled out and verbally attacked”. The EU report is spewing propaganda. It does not understand the media-cultural and political environment here. As for the “few reporters who faced threats of legal action by government ministers, who considered their reporting as defamatory,” the EU observers should know that opposition parties and any Guyanese are afforded that right. The media is not a law unto itself. Anyone could challenge the information it gives to the public in a court of law.
Secondly, the EU report was messy because it failed to either name or document the facts in the cases where it observed “instances of unequal access and allegations of pressure on civil servants”.
There were no cases of undue advantage of the ruling party, misuse of state resources, or partisan media coverage that distorted the level playing field. These are just allegations and manufactured controversies. There are no facts. They just did not occur or where they were, in fact, breaches should have been reported to the relevant authorities – GECOM, police and the government.
The president has adequately dealt with the report’s findings that his party benefited from some advantages of incumbency. I will not go there.
Thirdly, the unregulated campaign finance was a major issue in the 2025 elections. Yet, the EU observers’ report omitted to mention it. WIN paid the electorate to support it and poured millions into people who ended up being the APNU’s supporters and party members. It was recurring foot soldiers like ‘Doggie and Fatta’ by the hundreds, and paying them daily. The EU was not really observing the elections.
Its party general secretary, Odessa Primus, admitted that WIN spent millions. How could observers conveniently leave this out? Why is the report so generous to the WIN party but would throw the others under the bus for hearsay and housewife gossip?
Fourthly, nowhere in this report is social media mentioned. What? You mean that the EU did not monitor social media platforms or news pages that conveniently popped up for the election to try and influence the vote? There were fake news sites and more than 100 sites on social media. There are no findings of how they could have stolen the elections if it wasn’t for the PPP, that was policing their constituencies.
The EU is not and was not serious about sending this election observer body if it was totally unaware of the impact of social media and fake news on the polls here. This report appears to have a lot to say on all of the complex legal and political things about Guyana’s 2025 election, but it goes mute or is selective with the media landscape and social media.
Finally, I will not lose any sleep over the EU election observers’ report because it is not a true reflection of the pluralistic, political, electoral, media, and legal environment that prevailed at the time. It is based upon some of the fallacies and election propagandistic lies. It is small on facts and big on far-fetched claims.
The report is, therefore, biased and one-sided. It seeks to hoodwink the government into accepting its half-baked platitudes and stories, but I think the persons who did the report are to blame for misleading the EU bloc about Guyana’s Elections. EU needs to come stronger and get their facts right!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.