The opposition cannot produce evidence to show that the existing voters’ list is deficient

I refer to Mr. Sherwood Lowe’s letter in the Stabroek News (11/16/2022) on the need to conduct another House-to-House (HtoH) registration to clean up what he perceives to be a bloated voters’ list. Mr. Lowe believes that HtoH is the only method of registration that could lead to a clean voters’ list. He has minimized the impact of periods of “continuous registration” and “claims and objections” periods to update the existing voters’ list. He cites a 2008 statement from GECOM to support his position. “The imperative to conduct House-to-House Registration was born out of the need for the creation of an indisputable NRRDB which could be used as the basis for the preparation of Electoral Lists that would be commonly acceptable by all stakeholders as being unblemished.”

While a HtoH registration was conducted in 2008 to consolidate and start a fresh list, there has been no commitment or plan to institute subsequently another HtoH registration to replace the existing voters’ list. Political leaders cannot make decisions for GECOM. Under GECOM Chair James Patterson a HtoH registration occurred for 6 weeks when it was stopped. This process would have disenfranchised thousands of voters living and working abroad. Residency is not a qualification for voting. The PPP/C and other political parties believe that the periods of “continuous registration” and “claims and objections” are adequate to provide a clean voters’ list.

The voters’ list which has been described as “bloated” because it contains thousands of Guyanese living and working abroad, is not an unusual situation. Some countries allow dual citizenship so that individuals living and working abroad can vote in their home country once they are above 18 years of age and duly registered there (home country). In a few CARICOM countries, citizens living and working abroad are entitled to vote by returning home and casting their ballots. In Trinidad & Tobago (TT) the size of the voters’ list is equivalent to 81.1% of its total population. In Barbados, the size of the voters’ list is equivalent to 92.4% of the country’s population. The size of Guyana’s voter’s list at 2020 elections was 84.0%. Guyana had 470,000 voting age population in 2020 of which 460,352 voted. There were 660,988 registered voters, which meant that 181,000 Guyanese would have been living and working abroad at election time. Whether this number of voters should be removed from the voters’ list is a serious constitutional issue, to which I would return.

Both the Attorney General, Mr. Anil Nandlall, and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Ms. Gail Teixeira, stated that this was the same voters’ list that has been updated via “continuous cycles of registration” and “claims and objections” periods, that had been accepted to the PNCR and other political parties at the 2011 National and Regional elections when the PNCR won a majority in Parliament; it was the same updated list that was used for National and Regional Elections in 2015; and it was the same updated list that was used for Local Government Elections (LGEs) in 2016 and 2018. This updated voters’ list was also used as the basis for the 2020 National and Regional Elections. The fundamental point is that neither the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Aubrey Norton, nor Mr. Lowe could produce evidence to show that the existing voters’ list, which has been updated through regular cycles of “continuous registrations,” and “claims and objections,” is deficient.

To claim that the voters’ list is bloated or deficient because Guyanese migrants are on it, is not a smart position. The Hon Chief Justice had ruled in 2019 that that those persons who are registered could not be removed from the list except on death or on grounds set out in Article 159 (3) and (4) of the constitution. The right to vote is a significant constitutional one, and it is the greatest tool that electors have to influence public policy and programs. To arbitrarily deprive them of this right is not only a violation of their constitutional right but it is also a violation of natural justice. To argue in the name of transparency and accountability that President Desmond Hoyte moved to amend the constitution to allow for election “integrity” (counting of ballots at polling sites) and “trust” (joint appointment of GECOM Chair by government and opposition) is not enough reason for the PPP/C to agree to make similar constitutional amendments. Trust and integrity are vastly different from depriving electors of their inalienable right to exercise their franchise. No other individual right is more important and sacred than the right to vote.

There are other critical issues that political parties should focus on such as voter education, improving the counting of ballots (which was a weakness identified by the Carter Center) at polling stations, revising the rules and protocols of the tabulation process and timely declaration of poll tabulation results. A level of duplicitous behaviour is recognized here. While the PNCR’s partner AFC has cited the support of the Western diplomatic missions for constitutional reform, and while there is no guarantee that the thousands of “migrant” voters would be disenfranchised in this process, the PNCR operatives have launched a bitter attack on the British High Commissioner for supposedly interfering in Guyana’s internal affairs when she said that the existing voters’ list can be used with appropriate safeguards. When Congressman Hakeem Jeffries’ and NYS Attorney General Letitia James’ interferes in Guyana’s internal affairs, that behaviour was deemed as acceptable by the opposition forces.

Finally, should the political parties ever decide to walk on the murky path in the expectation to remove thousands of Guyanese (migrants) from the voters’ list, it is recommended that they proceed to amend the constitution by first conducting a referendum on this subject. Let the people decide! After the people speak, then Parliament can act accordingly.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tara Singh