Biometric voting could only be introduced here if there are constitutional changes, Attorney General Anil Nandlall has stressed, adding that in raising the issue again, the opposition is just attempting to misdirect the public before elections.
“Biometrics cannot be put in the law because it will conflict with the constitution. We all know there is one constitutional process to which we are committed. No mere legislative intervention can introduce biometrics in light of the constitution provisions and the ruling in the case of Esther Perreira,” Nandlall on Sunday told the Stabroek News.
“The opposition is simply trying to lay the foundation to cause possible disruption either before or after the elections,” he added, pointing out that his posture now is no different from that he has consistently been making.
That there is no law for this change to occur was also pointed out by former speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran, who said that while he supports upgrading the electoral process, everyone knows that all changes must be lawful.
“Since the decision of the case in Esther Perreira in 2001, it became the established law that no qualification, except those provided for in articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution, can be imposed on voters. This can also be interpreted to mean no obstacle,” he said in his Sunday Stabroek column this week.
“Like the voter ID law, the imposition by law of a biometrics requirement to vote similarly violates articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution. Since it would be a constitutional violation, the only possibility of clearing the way for the use of biometrics is an appropriate constitutional amendment,” he added.
Ramkarran said he believed that an ordinary law, such as the voter ID law, would be quickly overturned as violative of the constitution. “Even if the government were to be differently advised and decide that a mere amendment of the Representa-tion of the People Act to provide for biometrics would be sufficient, and that law is passed unanimously in the National Assembly, what would prevent an opposition [from] later claim[ing] that the law is unconstitutional, as occurred in relation to the voter ID law,” he contended.
In the Perreira case, the judge had struck down the law that required a voter ID card to be produced to enable the voter to vote, he noted. It was held that the voter ID law violated articles 59 and 159. Ramkarran cited Article 59, which “provides that subject to the provisions of article 159, every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana. Article 159 establishes that voters are required to be registered and it provides the qualifications for registration. There-fore, the essential constitutional qualifications that confer the right to vote are (a) eighteen years of age; (b) a citizen of Guyana; (c) a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana; (d) registered to vote.”
Feasibility
The joint opposition last week said it noticed that at its Novem-ber 5 meeting, the Guyana Elec-tions Commission (GECOM) had commenced discussions on the feasibility study on utilizing biometrics technology in elections that was prepared by Chief Election Officer (CEO) Vishnu Persaud, on the recommendation of GECOM Commis-sioner Vincent Alexander.
In a statement, the PNCR/ APNU, the AFC and the WPA said the fact that the subject of biometrics has remained on the agenda of GECOM, despite sustained efforts at excluding it, is “testimony to the will and persistence of the opposition parties and their commissioners”.
The submission and discussion of the CEO’s report on biometrics, though welcomed, constituted only a small step towards the goal of producing a clean voter list and introducing fingerprint biometrics as part of the voting process for the next and future General, Regional and Local Government elections, the parties stated.
“Let us re-emphasize that the joint opposition supports the full implementation of biometrics throughout the election process: that is, the capture of fingerprints digitally in the registration process (to enhance the quality of fingerprints available to the commission and aid in the prevention of multiple registration) and digitized fingerprint identification at the place of poll (to prevent voter impersonation or identity theft)”, the statement said.
The joint opposition expressed preparedness to lend support to all the necessary stages to arrive at this outcome, including enacting constitutional and statutory changes, if necessary.
“We believe that the technical and other concerns the CEO has identified in his report do not amount to insurmountable or irresolvable issues. We stand ready to engage in all necessary discussions at the GECOM level, the parliamentary level, and/or at the inter-party level to resolve these concerns to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, including the Guyanese people. We recognize and support GECOM’s position that stakeholder involvement should be integral to the process. In that regard, we call upon the commission to promptly engage these stakeholders before finalizing its internal discussions on the way forward.” the statement said.
Enhanced
General Secretary of the PPP Bharrat Jagdeo earlier this month pointed out that his party would support the introduction and funding of “enhanced biometrics” if GECOM made such a decision but on condition that next year’s general and regional elections are not delayed.
“Once it’s not disruptive to the voting and it doesn’t disenfranchise voters and it doesn’t delay the elections and all of that, we’d look at it favourably and I’ll take it to the executive of the party,” Jagdeo said.
However, he also referenced the Perreira case saying the opposition’s word could not be trusted and that his party would follow the law. He said that there have been many systems of upgrade to safeguard the transparency and functionality of next year’s elections and that the opposition should focus on those. He pointed to the manual for election day workers among other measures.
Nandlall said that his position was the same as his General Secretary’s and noted that both have spoken on the constitutionality of having biometrics here.
“I have repeatedly said this, that based upon the current provisions of the condition and current state of the law, as interpreted by our judiciary on numerous occasions, the use of biometrics or any other qualification to vote is not permissible. This was conclusively settled by the decisions of Esther Perreira where the parliamentary party by agreement enacted a legislation to require a voter’s ID card as an added qualification to vote. That is to say that additional to what the constitution prescribes,” he stressed.
“Those very persons who called for the use of the voter ID card, when they lost the elections, challenged the constitutionality of the use of the very ID card. Yet they persist in misleading their supporters and others by peddling this narrative. The General Secretary of the PPP has spoken formally on this matter. On this he has emphasized we must have elections when elections are constitutionally due and that all the legal safeguards authorized by the law and the Constitution must be in place, including vast number of amendments which we have made since 2020 that ought to now strengthen the electoral machinery and make it much more accountable and transparent,” he added.
Nandlall said that it is GECOM’s responsibility “to ensure that these safeguards are intact and to deliver elections in a fair and transparent manner within the time prescribed.”
