In a bold statement at the Alliance for Change (AFC) weekly press conference on Friday, party leader Nigel Hughes declared that the AFC stands firmly by its actions during the tumultuous aftermath of Guyana’s 2020 elections, and has nothing to apologise for.
Responding to media inquiries regarding the possibility of an apology, Hughes firmly stated, “I’m not sure what we would apologise for,” and challenged reporters to specify actions the party took during the election process that warranted an apology.
“Whether the AFC will apologise? If you’re talking about our role in elections, I would ask you to identify to me specifically what it is that you are saying the AFC did in the elections for which you are seeking an apology,” Hughes told the reporter.
During the 2020 elections the AFC was a member of the APNU/AFC then coalition Government, which faced massive accusations of undermining the electoral process. For five months following the March 2 elections, the APNU/AFC Coalition employed various delay tactics, including filing multiple court cases to stall the official declaration of results, which were ultimately confirmed through a CARICOM-led national recount. Hughes defended the AFC’s position, dismissing allegations of wrongdoing and asserting that the party acted in accordance with their understanding of the electoral process at the time.
Despite a clear victory for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), official results were not declared until August 2, leading to claims of election rigging and manipulation. Elections observers from the Organisation of American States (OAS) in their report noted that they had “never seen a more transparent effort to alter the results of an election,” further complicating the AFC’s defense.
Legal proceedings are currently ongoing against several top electoral officials and politicians linked to the previous Government, including former PNC Chair Volda Lawrence. These individuals are facing charges connected to the protracted dispute over the election results.
In December 2018, when the no-confidence motion was passed in the National Assembly against the David Granger Administration, Hughes had sparked a contentious debate, exacerbated by legal and procedural challenges that had significantly delayed the country’s electoral process. Central to this debate was Hughes’ argument that, mathematically, one half of the House when divided stands at 32.5 members. “There is no such thing as a half member, so half of the House is 33 members…this is because you have to round up to identify half of the House,” he had said, mere days after the no-confidence motion was passed. Therefore, he posited that 34 is the majority of the 65-member House rather than 33.
The aftermath of the motion as a result of this argument had been marked by legal challenges, appeals, and judicial decisions that extended beyond the constitutionally-mandated three-month deadline for the calling of an election. In June 2019, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) handed down its decision that 33, not 34, was the majority of the 65-member House.
In December 2022, the AFC formally severed its coalition with APNU. Since then, the AFC has been navigating the fallout from the elections and its subsequent actions. Hughes’ refusal to apologise may further ignite debates about accountability and the integrity of the party. AFC’s stance raises questions about the future direction of the party and its role in the country’s democratic framework.
