By Gregor Nassief
Dear Prime Minister,
A reset of the Electoral Commission is now required. It is required because the Commission has failed to properly implement the electoral laws and the systems necessary to make those laws work, and because public confidence in the Commission has been badly damaged as a result.
The numbers alone make the point. At your 5 May 2026 press conference, you stated that by 30 April only 6,592 applications for confirmation had been approved. If Dominica’s resident voting-age population is roughly 55,000, that means fewer than 12 percent of the voters who should be on the new list had actually been confirmed by the end of April. And only four and a half months remain before 15 October 2026.
This raises significant issues of legitimacy, confidence, and the visible independence of the institution charged with safeguarding our democracy.
If elections must not only be free and fair, but must be seen to be free and fair, then the same must be true of the institutions that administer them: the Electoral Commission and the Chief Elections Officer must not only be independent, they must be seen by the public to be independent.
For that reason, I believe the Electoral Commission and the Chief Elections Officer should resign. At a minimum, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and the Chief Elections Officer should be replaced so that confidence can begin to be rebuilt before the next general election.
The failures
The case for a reset rests on a pattern of failure, evasion, and political interference that together have undermined confidence in the Commission and in its supposed independence.
First, the Commission presided over the suspension of continuous voter registration for 355 consecutive days, from 19 March 2025 until 9 March 2026, preventing newly eligible citizens from registering during that period, including ahead of local government elections. That was not a minor procedural lapse. It was a violation of the constitutional right of eligible citizens to be registered as voters. Yet that period was later referred to by you as “water below the bridge,” and you said you did not believe the delay in continuous registration would have affected any election in Dominica. By contrast, when the Chief Elections Officer was asked whether the suspension might have changed election results, she would not say that it did, but also could not guarantee that it did not.
Second, the reform process has plainly failed in implementation. By your own figures, 16,573 applications had been received by 30 April 2026, but only 6,592 confirmations had been approved, leaving 9,981 applicants still unconfirmed after six and a half months. None of the confirmed voters had yet received a voter identification card, and the Electoral Office was only expected to begin issuing cards in another six to eight weeks. This is not a reform process functioning properly. It is a reform process visibly stalling.
Just as troubling is the continuing absence of regular, transparent reporting by the Commission. At a minimum, the public should by now be receiving weekly or monthly data showing the number of applications for confirmation received, the number approved, the number of new registration applications received, the number approved, and the overall pace of progress. Without that information, the public cannot measure whether the system is improving, whether bottlenecks are being addressed, or whether the Commission is meeting its obligations in a timely and transparent manner. That lack of basic reporting is itself another failure of accountability.
Third, the Commission has failed to communicate with the country in the manner that responsible public institutions are expected to do. At that same 5 May press conference, you said you were “pissed off” with DOMLEC for failing to explain interruptions, apologize, provide updates, and face questions from the public and the press. That criticism was entirely justified. But the same standard has not been applied to the Electoral Commission and the Chief Elections Officer, even though their responsibility is not electricity, but democracy itself. With the suspension of voter registration, democracy was effectively “turned off” for twelve months, while your anger has been directed at DOMLEC over blackouts lasting hours. When has the Commission explained interruptions and delays, apologized, provided clear plans, and faced questions from the public and the press?
Fourth, the Commission has failed to assert its own independence, even while you continue to speak of that independence. You have repeatedly spoken on behalf of the Commission, answered for it, explained its shortcomings, and defended it publicly. You have also said that the confirmation process must come to an end on 14 October 2026, without publicly affirming that the Commission itself has the legal power to extend that period if necessary. The Commission, for its part, has not meaningfully asserted that authority or defended its own constitutional space.
Most troubling of all is that you are no longer merely commenting on the Commission; you are increasingly acting as though you must speak for it and, indeed, act for it. At your 5 May press conference, you explained that you had written to external bodies to secure assistance, that you had raised operational concerns with the Commission yourself, and that when the public raises questions, you seek answers from the Commission. This is not what visible constitutional independence looks like. An Electoral Commission worthy of public confidence should be able to speak for itself, defend its own decisions, acknowledge its own weaknesses, and seek whatever technical help it requires in a manner that is clearly its own. When you are repeatedly seen stepping in as intermediary, advocate, explainer, and facilitator for the Commission, the unmistakable impression is that the Commission needs its hand held. That is not independence. It is dependence dressed up in constitutional language.
Your request for external technical help on behalf of the Commission is the clearest demonstration of this problem. At the 5 May press conference, you said the government had formally requested assistance from the Commonwealth Secretariat, the OAS, the OECS, and CARICOM, and that this help would be offered to the Commission. But a truly independent Commission that recognized its own operational deficiencies and wished to preserve public trust would have been seen to identify that need and publicly own the request for assistance itself. Instead, the country saw the Prime Minister stepping in to do so on its behalf. That does not strengthen the appearance of independence. It destroys it.
More than that, it is contrary to the spirit and plain intention of section 56(11) of the Constitution, which provides that, in the exercise of its functions, the Electoral Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority. A Commission that must be publicly explained for, publicly defended, operationally prompted, and externally assisted at the initiative of the Prime Minister is not projecting the constitutional independence that section 56(11) was designed to protect.
The final and most telling point came when you were asked a very important question: whether, in your view, the current Commission is perceived as impartial by eligible voters. That question went directly to the heart of public confidence, and it was not answered. An honest answer, I believe, would have been no. No, the Commission is not widely perceived as impartial or independent. And yes, that is precisely why a reset is now required.
These problems are made worse by the Commission’s underlying structure. Sir Dennis Byron himself recommended that representation on the Electoral Commission be broadened beyond the political parties to include wider civil society – such as academia, religious bodies, and business – and that at least one member be a woman. That reform was not implemented. The Commission therefore remains structurally unbalanced, and when a body that is already structurally limited then also fails in performance and in visible independence, the need for a change in its leadership becomes even more urgent.
The reset
I am reliably informed that in 2024, in a rare and significant display of unanimity, all five members of the Electoral Commission recommended that Mr. Ian‑Michael Anthony continue as Chief Elections Officer. That recommendation was apparently not accepted, and Ms. Joseph was appointed instead. If the entire Commission could unite behind one recommendation for the office of Chief Elections Officer, and that recommendation could still be disregarded, then the public is entitled to ask how much real independence the Commission exercises in practice.
If a full reset is not undertaken immediately, then at minimum, there should be a partial reset centered on the office of the Chief Elections Officer and the leadership of the Commission.
Mr. Anthony’s CV shows why that recommendation mattered. He previously served as Chief Elections Officer from October 2017 to September 2024, has senior public-sector administrative experience, is pursuing a master’s degree in Electoral Policy and Administration, holds a law degree and legislative drafting qualification, and has participated in multiple regional and international election-related programs, including Commonwealth Observer Group assignments in the Bahamas in 2021, Trinidad in 2025, and most recently Antigua in 2026. He appears, by training, experience, and regional recognition, exceptionally well qualified to serve as Chief Elections Officer.
For that reason, I believe Mr. Ian‑Michael Anthony should be reinstated as Chief Elections Officer. I also believe the Chairman of the Electoral Commission should be replaced, because confidence cannot be rebuilt while the present leadership remains associated with failure, silence, and visible dependence. Some eminently qualified individuals could assume this role, including former judges residing in Dominica.
Country first
Prime Minister, this letter is written in hope, not malice. Dominica needs a way forward that can restore public confidence before the next general election, and that begins with accepting that the present arrangement has failed.
If you act now to reset the Commission, or at a minimum to replace the Chairman and the Chief Elections Officer, you would give the country a genuine opportunity to rebuild trust. With trust reestablished, people are far more likely to confirm, register, and participate fully in a process they believe is being run fairly and independently.
This is the moment to do what is right for the country: restore confidence, protect the integrity of the process, and help heal the nation by ensuring that the institutions administering our elections are not only independent, but seen by all to be independent.
Respectfully,
Gregor Nassief
Disclaimer
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of Nature Isle News (NIN). Opinion pieces can be submitted to editor@natureisle.news