Dear Editor,
Chief Justice, Roxanne George-Wiltshire recently handed down a judgment dismissing Carol Joseph’s request for a judicial review of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM)’s implementation of the amendment to the National Registration Act. This amendment provides for the mere claim of an address, rather than the previous requirement of verifying an applicant’s residency, as a condition for registration and consequently, for inclusion on the voters list for persons aged 18 and above.
I wish to clarify that the issue at hand is not house-to-house registration; rather, it pertains to whether registration requires that a registrant be physically verified at the given registration address.
Moreover, I hypothesize that the amendment to the National Registration Act, GECOM’s embrace of this amendment, and the judge’s dismissal of Carol Joseph’s application are indicative of our laws being stripped of their spirit, thereby facilitating the erosion of the architecture of our so-called democracy.
Carol Joseph called upon the court to rule that verification of a registrant at their address is an essential prerequisite for registration concerning those elections or parts thereof that are constituency-based.
The Chief Justice ruled that such verification is unnecessary. According to a report in Demerara Waves, this ruling was based on Article 159(1): “No person shall vote at an election unless he or she is registered as an elector.” (The Chief Justice also relied on Articles 159(2) and 159(2)(a): “A person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector for elections if, and shall not be so qualified unless, he or she is of the age of eighteen years or upward and is a citizen of Guyana”).
In effect, she relies on two criteria for registration as an elector: age and citizenship. She also references Article 172(1): “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organized so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live.”
I find the judgment to be myopic. It neither considers the Constitution as a whole nor the historical evolution of the provisions necessary for realizing electoral democracy in Guyana. Thus, my contention is that the Constitution is being referenced without regard to its principles (spirit), which are foundational to all that exists within the Constitution, while the architecture for our democracy is being dismantled by the introduction of anti-democratic provisions.
While the Constitution clearly enshrines the right of electors to vote, it specifies that such individuals must meet certain qualifications: they must be Guyanese and 18 years of age or older, in addition to satisfying “such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law.” It defies logic when other provisions are disregarded. For example, Article 73 states, “Members of a regional democratic council shall be elected by persons residing in the region and registered as electors for the purpose of Article 159.” This provision must be read in conjunction with Article 159, which it references, and cannot be interpreted to mean that one can simply “claim” an address.
“Residing” and “claiming an address” are not synonymous. This distinction is reinforced by other provisions, such as Article 71(1): “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organized so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live.” “Claiming an address” cannot be equated to living there. It is the verification of actual residency that differentiates one from the other, hence the previous provision (National Registration Regulation 4A) that mandated verification. The rationale is that elections establish a relationship between voters and elected officials, grounded in the responsibilities of elected persons regarding matters that affect the elector. “Claiming an address” does not provide a foundation for such a relationship. It is genuine residency that fosters this relationship, beginning with voting and extending to making decisions that are binding upon citizens of their area, as provided for in Article 75 of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice trivializes the importance of verifying an address, claiming it is merely needed to determine where the registrant will be listed to vote. She fails to grasp that in any constituency-based elections within a democratic society, residency ensures that a voter votes in the location where they have a vested interest in what the elected representatives will do and how their decisions will affect them.
The overarching provision is the Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic, and Social System outlined in Chapter II of the Constitution, which articulates and enshrines the foundations upon which the Constitution and state entities, including the courts, should operate, as articulated in Article 39(1) of the Constitution. No law or provision is exempt from being guided by these principles.
Article 9 stipulates that the people exercise their sovereignty through their representatives and democratic organs. Here again, the relationship between the people of specific areas and their democratic institutions is emphasized. It is further articulated that “local government by freely elected representatives of the people is an integral part of the democratic organization of the State,” with the principal objective being the establishment of “an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens in the management and decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
Participation implies not just voting for someone; it signifies a living relationship based on common geographic interests (residency) and the election of individuals to conduct the public affairs of the electorate. This relationship can only exist with someone who actually lives in the community, rather than someone who merely claims to reside there. Therefore, verification of residency must occur, as opposed to merely confirming the existence of an address. Failure to verify the residency of those who claim to live there opens the system to fraud and manipulation.
Any provision that fails to safeguard this relationship and allows for distortions—such as residents not being able to determine their leadership in an area in which they are not genuinely invested—contradicts the Constitution and devalues the votes of citizens who may become victims of contrived majorities and governance.
All of the aforementioned must be viewed from a historical perspective, considering the evolution of the system. The system has transitioned from a single constituency model to a politically and geographically decentralized democracy, clearly articulated in Article 78B, which provides for “representation and accountability to the electors.” This relationship cannot be merely claimed; it must be evidently real. A key element for establishing this reality is the connection between voters and the elected representatives within a common space of interest. Individuals must be known to actually reside there to foster such a relationship.
Of course, concerns about disenfranchisement have been raised as a reason for not imposing stricter regulations on registration and voting. However, this argument is flawed. It does not take into account the relative nature of rights, as clearly articulated in Article 40(2) of the Constitution: “The rights and freedoms of any individual should not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.” In relation to this issue, the right to vote should not facilitate an alien vote that undermines and devalues the votes of constituents and their right to choose their representatives. It is important to clarify that no elector would be disqualified from participating in the national or general aspects of the multi-tier elections. All individuals would be entitled to vote for members of the National Assembly, who are elected by the nation at large. The restriction is not intended to deny anyone a vote; rather, it aims to redirect individuals to the constituency to which they truly belong, as previously stipulated, ensuring that they have an entitlement grounded in the nature of representation.
The amendment, in addition to being incongruent with the fundamental provisions of the legal system, seeks to undermine the spirit of the law (representation as a cornerstone of our democracy) and provides a platform for the erosion of the intended democratic framework.
Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
