Attorney General Anil Nandlall has strongly criticised the opposition’s interpretation of Guyana’s electoral framework, dismissing their recent demands for a forensic audit or annulment of the 2025 elections as a “shocking misunderstanding” of the law.

Speaking outside the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) headquarters on Friday night, Nandlall stressed that the Commission has no legal authority to overturn results or unilaterally quash outcomes.

His remarks came in direct response to a letter from A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) presidential candidate Aubrey Norton to GECOM Chairperson, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, in which Norton called for a forensic audit or fresh elections.

Norton, who is already facing mounting pressure from his own supporters to step aside, was rebuked by Nandlall for attempting to bypass established legal channels.

“The author of that letter has demonstrated a shocking misunderstanding of the electoral laws of this country,” Nandlall said, warning that such demands, if acted upon, would themselves violate the law.

He reminded that the Constitution provides clear avenues for recounts and election petitions, but these processes must be grounded in reason and supported by substantive evidence.

The Attorney General further noted that the recently completed recount exercise amounted to a re-tabulation of ballots and exposed no irregularities of consequence.

Nandlall also cautioned that APNU’s manoeuvres risk stalling the democratic process, urging instead for a more efficient declaration of results, pointing to the streamlined systems used in Jamaica and Trinidad as models.

Meanwhile, in her written response to Norton’s letter, Justice Singh clarified that GECOM is currently overseeing recounts in Sub-District Four of Region Four and 77 ballot boxes in Region Five, both at APNU’s request.

However, she underscored that wider disputes fall outside the Commission’s remit.

Citing Article 163 of the Constitution, Singh reaffirmed that the High Court has “exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an election was lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been affected by any unlawful act or omission.”

She stressed that any demand for a forensic audit or annulment must be pursued through the judiciary by way of an election petition, not through GECOM.