On January 16, Justice of Appeal (Rtd) Claudette Singh, Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), made a decision against biometrics at the upcoming polls and pointed to various reasons including what would be the unconstitutional imposition of another mandatory requirement for voters.
In her decision, Singh acknowledged the arguments for and against the introduction of biometric systems, particularly digital fingerprint capture during voter registration and at polling stations. She noted that while there is no legal barrier to GECOM implementing a digital fingerprint system, the introduction of such a technology in time for the 2025 elections faces significant challenges.
Some of the primary concerns raised by government-nominated GECOM commissioners opposing biometrics include the additional burden it could place on voters, especially those already registered in the system, as well as the lack of time to procure necessary equipment, train staff, and educate the public. The commission would also need to conduct consultations with stakeholders and make legislative changes before implementing such a system.
On the other hand, commissioners in favour of biometric systems, opposition-nominated commissioners, argued that it could enhance election security and voter identification. The legal framework already allows for the comparison of fingerprints with voter ID cards, they pointed out, and biometric technology could be used as an additional tool to verify voter identities at polling stations.
However, Singh in her decision seen by Stabroek News concluded that, given the time constraints before the elections, the full implementation of a biometric system was not feasible. She emphasized that there was still a need for legislative adjustments, public education, and logistical preparations that would require more time than was available before the 2025 elections.
Having considered the law and the matter as a whole, she said that she came to the following conclusions on the question of whether GECOM could introduce Digital Fingerprint Capture in the registration process and at the place of poll:
– In relation to the registration process, the fingerprints of applicants are currently taken manually, but section 9 (1A) of the National Registration Act as amended by Act 14 of 2005 empowers the Commission to determine from time-to-time procedures for the acquisition and electronic processing of data.
“It is obvious therefore that, in this regard, there is nothing in the law or otherwise preventing the introduction of a system where such fingerprints are taken digitally, since it is the Commission that is empowered to determine such procedures. Thus, it is my opinion that GECOM could introduce such a system”, she stated.
However, apart from the necessary elements of implementing such a system, such as the procurement of equipment, training of personnel and education of the public, she asserted that there is still the need for the Commission to address other issues, such as ensuring that there is adequate legislation pertaining to the security of prints.
In relation to biometric identification at the place of poll, Singh said that there is legal provision for fingerprints of voters to be compared with that on their identity paper which equates to the National Identification Card. However, only ID Cards issued to persons, who could not sign carry, the fingerprint of the registrant. In this regard, what is on their identification card would also be in the system, but a Presiding Officer would not be able to make such a comparison using just their eyes.
“Introducing a system of biometric Identification of voters digitally as a mandatory, or only, means of identification would impose an additional requirement for voters and would therefore be unconstitutional. It may however, be used as an additional mechanism to aid in the identification of electors where, if a person who is eligible to vote cannot be identified using the digital fingerprint, the other methods can still be used to identify him and allow him to vote. It is my opinion that GECOM could introduce it in that way as another tool to identify persons. However, in this regard legislation will be necessary for the introduction of such tools”, the GECOM Chair said.
In relation to whether GECOM could introduce the digital collection of fingerprints and biometric fingerprint identification of voters in time for the 2025 General and Regional Elections she said that it would still have to do major things such as:
(a) Holding stakeholder consultations to determine whether GECOM should introduce biometrics now.
(b) Consulting with stakeholders like the Government and Parliament to determine whether it is even possible to do so now, considering things like costs and any legislative amendments necessary to cater fully for it.
(c) Procurement of equipment for the introduction of biometrics in the registration process and at the place of poll.
(d) Training of staff on the use of such equipment.
(e) Public education on the introduction of these systems and how they are to be used to aid in registration and in voting.
“With less than a year to go before these Elections, and given the number of tasks that would need to be done before such a system can be properly introduced, and all of the work already required to prepare for General and Regional Elections, I am convinced that this is not feasible within the time presently available”, Singh said.
