In this period of our history where digital governance should be the standard, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government has implemented (without a public official launch) a border management system so ill-conceived, it borders on a deliberate act of exclusion. The newly introduced Novo System—implemented after the unceremonious scrapping of a Canadian-designed border network adopted by the previous APNU+AFC government—has not only demonstrated that it is technically deficient, but structurally discriminatory toward Guyanese citizens living abroad.
When the PPP/C came to political power in 2020, for no intelligent reason, it scraped Canadian-designed border network used by the APNU+AFC administration and implemented the Novo system., which is costing the incumbent regime hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. Now, as I write this column, the Novo system is neither available nor operable at Guyana’s overseas diplomatic missions.
The consequences are both logistical and financial: Guyanese in the diaspora—many of whom remain deeply connected to their homeland—are now forced to incur exorbitant travel costs just to renew a passport. For a government that boasts about its record in inclusionary democracy, the diaspora’s contributions in remittances, investment, and advocacy, this policy choice is nothing short of betrayal. It is a dereliction of duty shadowed by gross incompetence.
In practical terms, what should be a routine bureaucratic task—passport renewal—has been transformed into an odyssey. Citizens must navigate international travel, time off work, and additional accommodation expenses, all because of the government’s refusal or inability to design a system that respects the global distribution of its citizenry. The inaccessibility of the border system at embassies and consulates reflects a technocratic elitism and a disdain for participatory governance.
Again, the implications for electoral integrity are no less dire. With passports playing a critical role in voter verification, the systemic barriers to renewal can effectively disenfranchise large swaths of the diaspora electorate. In the context of Guyana’s fragile democratic norms and history of electoral disputes, this should alarm every citizen. A border system that selectively restricts access to identification documents cannot be disentangled from broader concerns about democratic participation and fairness.
And then there is the matter of cost. Despite repeated calls for transparency, the PPP/C government has yet to disclose how many millions of Guyanese dollars were poured into this flawed system. The public deserves to know why a Canadian-backed infrastructure—reportedly stable and effective—was scrapped in favour of a private-sector initiative shrouded in secrecy and riddled with dysfunction. Were due diligence and cost-benefit analyses performed? Or was the decision politically motivated, designed to erase any legacy of the APNU administration regardless of its merits?
The cracks in the Novo system are not hypothetical—they are literal and recurring. At the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, where the system was supposed to be a flagship feature, technicians are routinely called upon to troubleshoot malfunctions. That a high-tech border infrastructure requires constant human intervention at the nation’s primary port of entry is a glaring indictment of its failure. In a region increasingly committed to digital transformation and seamless mobility, Guyana finds itself stumbling backward.
It is clear that, the PPP/C government’s management of the country’s border system reflects a broader pathology: a preference for political expediency over policy efficacy, opacity over transparency, and centralisation over inclusivity. Until the system is revamped to serve all Guyanese—home and abroad—it will remain a monument to administrative failure and an affront to national unity.
I have to say that, the diaspora is not an afterthought; it is an extension of the nation. Any system that excludes it is not merely flawed—it is unjust.
