“No electoral process can replace the life of any Guyanese… I assure you that the Community remains committed to the people of Guyana and remains resolute that the report of its Observer Mission was very clear in its conclusions as to the will of the Guyanese people as reflected in the recount which they monitored.” These were the words of Barbados Prime Minister, Mia Mottley, during the 2020 Guyana Elections Recount Exercise.
At that time the prime minister was Chairperson of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) as she is now. Mottley was adamant that the results declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) reflected the expressed ‘will of the people,’ a will she insisted Guyanese must accept.
Order 60/2020, dated May 4, 2020, which initiated the Recount, states:
“AND WHEREAS the Guyana Elections Commission, in exercise of the authority vested in it under Article 162 of the Constitution and pursuant to Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 15 of 2000, seeks to remove difficulties connected with the application of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03, in implementing its decisions relating to the conduct of the aforementioned recount of all ballots cast at the said elections, including the reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled, stamped, and as deemed necessary, their counterfoils/stubs; authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of votes cast without ID cards; the number of proxies issued and the number utilised; statistical anomalies; occurrences recorded in the Poll Book.”
Consistent with this Order, the recount process unearthed various discrepancies outlined below.
However, Mottley expressed that if there were any concerns about the outcome, these should be challenged through an Election Petition. Yet, according to legal experts, Order 60/2020 rendered such petitions unnecessary, as the votes had already been reviewed and validated by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The experts argue that certain votes, which would otherwise be deemed invalid under the Representation of the Peoples Act, were made ‘valid’ during the recount process.
In her June 24, 2020 statement, Mottley emphasised that CARICOM “holds the strong view that no voter must be disenfranchised in determining the credibility of this or any election.” Following the logic of the Prime Minister’s argument, analysts contend that CARICOM should hold a similar strong view in insisting that only bona fide voters should be allowed to cast ballots.
This would address issues such as fraudulent voting, multiple voting, and deceased voters—issues that are critical in determining the credibility of any election. These concerns could be mitigated by a clean voters list and the introduction of biometric voting systems, neither of which are currently in place for the 2025 elections.
There has been widespread called for clean Voters List and biometrics for more than five years, including from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). This is largely informed by Guyanese desire in “determining the credibility of any election” and seeking not to have “any voter disenfranchised.”
The PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo, then Opposition Leader stressed the need for a cleaner Voters List and the introduction of enhanced biometric systems to minimise the risk of multiple voting. He argued that advanced biometric systems, beyond just photo IDs, could significantly reduce instances of fraudulent voting. Jagdeo’s concerns were especially pronounced after the PPP’s loss in the 2015 elections. Today the Jagdeo-led PPP is disinterred in clean voters list and biometrics and has expressed confidence in GECOM’s ability to conduct free, fair and credible elections.
Voter fraud and post-election unrest are frequent in Guyana, disrupting the peace and ethnic coexistence many seek to pursue. Violence after elections has been a recurrent issue in Guyana, with recent elections (except for 2015) marred by various forms of violence—a situation many seek to avoid, especially as the call for biometric voting intensifies.
Prime Minister Mottley expressed dismay over the death of one person during the 2020 election protests, which were sparked by PPP supporters in West Coast Berbice. These supporters went on a violent rampage, attacking innocent schoolchildren, road users, and police officers, which led to the death of one supporter.
The protest emerged from the perception that the PPP was being cheated out of the election results while the nation awaited the final declaration. Critics argue that if Mottley was disturbed by the loss of one life during the protests, she should similarly be concerned about the potential for greater violence in future elections if biometric voting is not implemented.
The role of CARICOM and other international observers in addressing the concerns surrounding Guyana’s voters list has been criticised for being largely ignored by the government and GECOM.
As of January 2025, Guyana’s population is approximately 750,000, yet the voter roll has 735,000 names—indicating a bloated list. CARICOM’s silence on this issue has raised concerns that it may be indirectly enabling a scenario conducive to voter fraud.
In its 2020 report, CARICOM highlighted the need for electoral reform, stating,
“As a minimum condition of electoral reform, the Team recommends the urgent need for the total re-registration of all voters in Guyana. It is clear that given the state of the voter registration of the country, Guyana was not adequately prepared for the 2020 poll. Yet circumstances beyond the control of the Commission precluded this preparedness. It therefore behooves the Commission to create a new voter registry, especially given the suspicion that the 2020 register was bloated, a suspicion which is not without merit.”
As Guyana heads into its 2025 elections, the calls for reform and the implementation of biometric systems are more urgent than ever to safeguard the integrity and credibility of the electoral process. This pursuit is informed by the principle that “no voter must be disenfranchised in determining the credibility of this or any election.”
