Dear Editor,
[Friday] evening the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs laid a bill in the National Assembly “Bill No. 9 of 2025 Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2025). The government is seeking to amend Section 33C(1) of the Principal Act by the substitution for the word “shall” of the word “may”.
The Explanatory Memorandum further states “This change they said is necessary to provide discretion as regards the revision of the official list of electors and the non-resident electoral roll under certain circumstances.”
Section 33C(1) Currently states “Where there is an interval of more than three months, but not exceeding six months, after the qualifying date with reference to which the official list of electors, or the non-resident electors roll is prepared under section 33A(1) and the day appointed for the next election after that date, the Commissioner shall cause the official list of electors and non-resident electors roll to be revised, in accordance with procedure established by the Commission by regulation”.
I must at the outset indicate that I am by no means a lawyer but my lay-man understanding of the word “shall” suggests that it makes the action mandatory, thus obligating GECOM to revise the OLE once 3 months have passed (but not more than 6 months) between the qualifying date and election day. It also implies that the action is a statutory one where there are clear timelines and expectations and thus GECOM can be held accountable if they do not fulfill this statutory duty. This word shall also ensure that the list is current.
The proposed change from “shall” to “may” makes this action discretionary and in the strictest sense the action becomes optional and based on the views of GECOM or whoever has the ears of the person who makes these decisions. The word “may” opens the door for bias, partisan influence, and arbitrary decisions to be made about the updating of the OLE.
Changing “shall” to “may” in Section 33C(1) dilutes the legal obligation of GECOM to revise the electoral roll in specific, time-sensitive circumstances. This change is not helpful to transparency or accountability. Instead, it risks creating uncertainty, opening space for perceived or real manipulation, and undermining trust in elections.
This cannot be accepted or condoned.
Yours truly,
Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, MP
