Dear Editor,
Amid incessant calls from opposition forces for the introduction of biometrics in the 2025 election voting process, Guyana’s Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall states that while he is not opposed to technology, “the manual system being used for voting is working perfectly fine.” The AG expresses his support for and defends the integrity of the existing voting requirements.
To illustrate his reservation on biometrics, Mr Nandlall poses a rhetorical question: “if I turn up at a polling station and have my ID; my name is on the List; the folio that the GECOM staff has and all the polling agents have confirmed my ID, I am that person; the photograph is me; if I go and put my finger on the machine ….and it malfunctions, are you telling me that I would be denied my right to vote?”
The opposition campaign for biometrics is bolstered by their “claim” that dead people voted plus immigrants (not present in the country on Election Day) voted. However, the PPP/C produced evidence (living persons in Guyana) on videotapes that show a sample of the people whose names were on the APNU+AFC list, did vote and were physically present in Guyana on Election Day. The central issue though is not about electoral irregularities but rather what type of role would biometrics play in preventing any attempt to steal an election!
Even if one assumes that there were few electoral irregularities in 2020, those would have not been significant enough to alter the results of the elections. And if those irregularities were committed under the watchful eyes of APNU+AFC agents and the pro-aligned GECOM top administrative officials, then that would be a shocking indictment of the state of APNU+AFC’s operation and management credentials. Were their staff guilty of dereliction of duty during Election Day?
To focus on biometrics and related house-to-house registration is also to deflect attention from other pressing issues such as (i) the need to make it mandatory for political parties to publicly post their copies of SoPs immediately after the election results are declared; (ii) what level of sanction should be imposed on GECOM staff who deliberately disenfranchises voters? (At the 2020 elections Mr. Lowenfield attempted to disenfranchise 115, 787 voters); (iii) an urgency to -re-examine the efficacy of the Carter-Price formula for appointing a GECOM Chair; (iv) and how should people who disingenuously distort data interpretation to allow their party to remain in power (33 is not a majority of 65) be treated?
In response to the probability of electricity blackouts, critics argue that there are portable battery-operated machines that could accomplish the biometrics task. They have not mentioned about the possibility of these machines malfunctioning and what might be the impact on the process. To ease the fear that thousands of voters might be disenfranchised through the hurried application of biometrics, Mr. Sherwood Lowe states: “The law must be clear that those persons who were not reached during BCE (Biometric Collection Exercise) must still be allowed to vote through the manual verification of their facial features (SN: 11/18/24).” One could therefore ask: “why do we need a dual system of voting?” Wouldn’t this complicate the voting system? In addition, if the manual verification system is not considered robust enough or open to irregularities, why would anyone still allow that method (manual) to exist alongside BCE?
A biometrics system can only be introduced in the voting system if there is a constitutional amendment. The 1997 post elections drama comes to mind when both parties agreed to the use of Voter ID but when the PNCR lost the elections they filed a motion to nullify the results on the ground that the use of voter ID was unconstitutional. They prevailed. The trial Judge in that case was Madame Claudette Singh who was appointed as GECOM Chair by the APNU+AFC party in July 2019, and now they vilify and label her as bias and agitate for her removal.
While consideration as to the efficacy of biometrics is being discussed (including the possibility of a biometrics feasibility study), a decision on its deployment in time for the 2025 elections would not happen. In the meantime, GECOM continues to clean and update the voters’ list through its regular cycle of continuous registration and objections. (GECOM’s first cycle in 2024 was from January to May and the second one was from July to November). When a better method becomes available (whether biometrics or otherwise) and it is agreeable to all parties, then forward movement is likely.
Sincerely,
Dr. Tara Singh
