Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh S.C., is inappropriately hiding behind legal technicalities to avoid implementing biometrics in the upcoming General and Regional Elections.
Singh’s position is further bolstered by her legal counterpart, Ralph Ramkarran S.C, yet both are fully aware that laws are not immutable. Ramkarran, who served as Chairman of the 1999 Constitutional Reform Commission and Speaker of the National Assembly, knows that laws can be amended to align with societal needs, provided they don’t infringe on universal rights and freedoms.
The call for biometrics in the next elections is only growing louder, driven by the increasing threat to our democracy, the ongoing disregard for citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and the lack of proper stewardship of our resources. The call reflects the political demand (objective) for an “inclusionary democracy” that recognises every citizen’s right to be part of the electoral process.
Ramkarran’s defense, invoking Articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution, is weak. Article 59, which outlines voter qualifications, states that every citizen aged 18 or older, or any Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana, is eligible to vote. Expressly Article 59 states:
“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 deals with the qualifications and disqualifications for electors, but neither article precludes the implementation of biometrics.
It’s critical to remind Ramkarran that Article 159 was amended through constitutional changes in 2001 (3 of 2001 to be exact), a process that did not require a referendum. If such amendments were made then, they can be made again by the National Assembly in 2025.
If Justice Singh and Ramkarran are truly committed to democracy and understand the role of law in preserving governance systems, they will not obstruct legitimate efforts to ensure free, fair, and credible elections—a demand echoed by the public.
The only thing standing in the way of a legislative solution is political will. There is no legal barrier to revisiting the National Assembly to pass the necessary laws, only the unwillingness of those currently in power to act, including those seeking to provide them coverage not to act. Let us not forget that during the 2020 election, GECOM was granted the authority to make laws, and those actions were upheld by the Caribbean Court of Justice, the region’s highest court.
Justice Singh, aware of the longstanding call for biometrics, waited until the 9th hour to inform the nation that it is too late to implement this crucial reform. This failure constitutes an abdication of her responsibility to the people of Guyana. A failure we must not accept as irreversible.
Since GECOM has the legal authority to enact necessary regulations, it is well within its power to propose amendments and demand cooperation from both the Opposition and Government benches in the National Assembly in getting it passed.
In 1990, President Desmond Hoyte and Opposition (Minority) Leader Dr. Cheddi Jagan returned to the National Assembly to amend the laws that established the current GECOM and reformed the electoral system. Although this was inconvenient to some, it was necessary to stabilise a society on the brink of crisis. We face similar challenges today, and the need for remedial action to ensure stability and growth is urgent.
Let me reiterate the trade union’s unwavering commitment to the principle of one-man-one-vote. This struggle began in 1926 under the leadership of Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, the Father of Trade Unionism in the British Empire and Guyana’s National Hero. The fight for free, fair, and transparent elections is inseparable from the preservation of Critchlow’s legacy. Progressive trade unionists will not relent in defending this sacred right.
