A long-simmering dispute over the integrity and independence of Dominica’s electoral system has escalated, with prominent local figure Gregor Nassief formally announcing plans to refer longstanding public confidence concerns to regional and international election monitoring bodies after Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit repeatedly dismissed calls for reform.
For decades, Dominican voters and political observers have flagged a consistent set of vulnerabilities that erode trust in the country’s election outcomes. These longstanding issues include bloated voter rolls, questionable voting practices involving long-term overseas residents and transient flown-in voters, insufficient identity verification protocols, widespread reports of vote-buying and campaign finance violations, and uneven enforcement of electoral rules, all compounded by persistent public doubt that the Electoral Commission can act as an impartial referee free from political influence.
Nassief emphasizes that the independence of the commission is non-negotiable for legitimate elections. Without a publicly trusted body committed to enforcing rules fairly and addressing systemic abuses, disputes will continue to plague every election cycle, and any close result will inevitably face widespread suspicion of manipulation. The 2019 general election, the last fully contested national vote, underscored just how high the stakes of these weaknesses are: official results showed five constituencies – Castle Bruce, La Plaine, Mahaut, Morne Jaune, and Wesley – were decided by margins of less than 8%, where even minor lapses in enforcing residency rules, voter list integrity or anti-bribery laws could swing the final outcome.
On June 8, Nassief and other stakeholders issued a formal public appeal to Skerrit to support a reset of the Electoral Commission, after public confidence in its impartiality and independence collapsed. The appeal focused on concrete, documented problems rather than unsubstantiated rumors: a more than one-year suspension of voter registration that threatened to disenfranchise new voters ahead of upcoming local elections, the ongoing failure to issue legally required voter identification cards, overt political interference in the commission’s operational space, and premature public framing of an October 14, 2026 deadline for voter confirmation that incorrectly implied the commission had no legal discretion to adjust the timeline.
Two days later, at a June 10 press conference, Skerrit did not address any of the specific concerns raised. Instead, he dismissed allegations of political interference and eroded public trust as political distractions and “smoke screens”, told voters to proceed with the voter confirmation process as planned, and claimed the issue was “out of my hands”. He also asserted that he represents more Dominicans than any other individual and challenged critics to prove their claims of institutional failure.
Nassief pushes back against these remarks, arguing that no single political leader – no matter their electoral success – has the right to dismiss valid public concerns out of hand. Confidence in elections cannot be measured by the comfort of the incumbent government, he says; it must be measured by whether voters across all political factions believe the rules are applied fairly, transparently, and without favoritism.
The facts behind the concerns are unambiguous, Nassief argues: voter registration was indeed suspended for more than 12 months, a period that overlapped with local government elections that locked out newly eligible voters from participating. The voter confirmation process launched with well-documented administrative failures and slow processing speeds. The Registration of Electors Act legally requires the Chief Registering Officer to issue voter ID cards to all approved registered electors, yet thousands of approved voters still wait for their cards to this day.
Critically, the appeal is not a call for voter boycotts – it is the opposite. Nassief stresses that every eligible Dominican should complete registration and confirmation, but maximum voter participation can only be achieved when the public trusts the process. Voters should not be expected to participate blindly, with questions about fairness, administrative competence and institutional independence brushed aside as irrelevant.
Claims of political interference are also not baseless, Nassief notes. The Electoral Commission Act enshrines the body as fully independent, not subject to direction or control from any individual or government authority. But public records show repeated instances where Skerrit has spoken on the commission’s behalf, intervened in its operational decisions, defended its legal violations, secured unrequested external support for it, and shaped public expectations of its deadlines and procedures. This consistent blurring of lines between the executive branch and the supposedly independent electoral body is the natural root of public doubt, not unfounded mischief.
Skerrit’s claim that the electoral process is “out of my hands” is particularly inconsistent with recent history, Nassief argues. On a prior occasion when the government deemed intervention necessary, the commission’s supposed untouchable independence was set aside immediately. Public records confirm that Skerrit stepped in to direct the commission to reinstate birth certificates as a valid form of voter identification in specific cases – a move that had broad public support, but clearly demonstrated that the commission has not asserted its constitutionally mandated independent space. Nassief says it is therefore not credible for the executive to shape electoral procedures informally when it suits political goals, then disclaim any responsibility for restoring public confidence when systemic failures emerge.
Dominica’s existing legal framework already grants the Electoral Commission broad discretionary authority over voter registration, confirmation, roll revisions, special registration windows and timeline adjustments. The law also specifies that if an election writ is issued mid-confirmation process, a transitional voter roll will be used, and the roll is frozen to changes until after polling day. The House of Assembly Elections Act designates voter ID cards as the primary voting document, with a secondary pathway for voters without cards to prove identity via other official documents and a sworn oath. In short, the law already gives the commission enormous power to shape election outcomes – if the commission is weak, error-prone or distrusted, that power does not reassure voters; it amplifies the risk of unfair results.
In his June 8 letter, Nassief closed with an appeal directly to Skerrit, writing “As the arbitrator of all things in Dominica, the reset is entirely in your hands. I appeal to you to act.” Skerrit’s June 10 response did not dispute the core facts, acknowledge any institutional failures, or outline a plan to rebuild public trust. Instead, it effectively told the Dominican public to accept the status quo and move forward. Nassief argues that a government cannot demand public acceptance when it has not earned public confidence, and a prime minister cannot claim to speak for all the people while dismissing the concerns that the people are raising.
Now, after Skerrit’s clear refusal to address the concerns raised across seven consecutive open letters, Nassief is escalating the issue by formally referring the full set of concerns to regional and international election observation bodies, including the Organization of American States, CARICOM, and the Commonwealth Secretariat. This step is not intended to discourage voter participation, he stresses – it is intended to protect it. Every eligible Dominican deserves the chance to participate in an electoral process that commands public trust, with an independent commission that addresses the historic flaws that have undermined Dominican elections for decades.
“Since we can no longer rely on you to address these concerns, we will appeal to others to give them the closest possible attention,” Nassief writes. He adds that the issue will not be dropped, because the commission’s full independence remains unfulfilled, its unconstitutional errors are documented and unaddressed, close election margins amplify every systemic weakness, and the Dominican people deserve an electoral process that is not just technically legal, but genuinely credible, impartial, and worthy of public trust.
