By Mark DaCosta-The recent discourse surrounding the eligibility of incarcerated citizens to vote in Guyana’s upcoming General and Regional Elections has ignited a pressing debate about democracy and human rights. The accusations levelled against the current administration by the advocacy group, BUYDG (Building Unity for the Youth of Guyana), specifically target the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, SC, for dismissing calls for inmate voting, openly stating that he is evading scrutiny of decades of political mismanagement. BUYDG argues that constitutional provisions affirming the right of prison inmates to vote have been overlooked.
BUYDG is an advocacy organisation focused on promoting social justice and human dignity, especially for the youth and vulnerable populations within our country. The group’s mission emphasises the need for equality and inclusiveness in our political landscape, asserting that every citizen, irrespective of their situation, retains fundamental rights, particularly the right to vote. Their stance is that fostering a democratic society means recognising the inherent dignity of all individuals, including those incarcerated.
In the lead-up to the September 1, 2025 elections, concerns have been raised regarding the rights of inmates, with estimates indicating that over 2,000 eligible citizens may be deprived of their vote due to administrative neglect. The recent statements by Attorney General Nandlall, which were perceived as deflecting responsibility for the historical failure to enfranchise these individuals, have only heightened public discontent. It has been pointed out that while past administrations, including the current People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C), bear some blame, neglecting the rights of citizens currently reflects poorly on our democratic principles.
The Constitution of our homeland, as stated in Article 159, clearly permits voting for incarcerated individuals except for those convicted of electoral crimes and those declared mentally unfit. The BUYDG asserts that administering voting rights to remandees and appellants does not require additional legislation but rather a commitment to uphold constitutional principles. They express a sense of disillusionment with leaders who champion democracy abroad while ignoring these violations at home. The organisation underscores, “How can we call ourselves a democratic nation when an average of over 2,000 possible eligible citizens are denied the franchise?”
Disappointment has also been directed at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), particularly its Chairwoman, a former judge, for her perceived inaction in addressing the concerns about inmate voting. The BUYDG states, “GECOM has a legal mandate to ensure that all eligible citizens are enfranchised… To hide behind the veil of ‘no legislation’ is to abandon GECOM’s core duty.” This sentiment echoes the frustrations of many who feel that GECOM’s actions may be influenced by political affiliations rather than a commitment to uphold constitutional rights.
The argument against allowing inmates to vote — citing a loss of rights upon conviction — has been firmly rejected by BUYDG, which maintains that, “Incarceration may restrict a person’s liberty of movement, but it does not erase a citizen’s humanity, dignity, or constitutional identity.” The organisation asserts that the right to vote is rooted in citizenship, not freedom of movement, emphasising that the Constitution does not stipulate the exclusion of incarcerated individuals from the electoral process.
Historical examples of prominent figures who have maintained their rights even after incarceration bolster the group’s claims. Individuals like Nelson Mandela and former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva have illustrated that imprisonment does not negate one’s civic value. The BUYDG further insists, “A person’s right to vote remains intact unless the Constitution specifically removes it — and ours does not.”
BUYDG concludes with a call to action aimed at political leaders, GECOM, and civil society to facilitate the voting rights of all eligible inmates. They propose that the process could be easily implemented, emphasising the potential for this to be a historic moment in our nation. “This moment is historic. If our country facilitates inmate voting this year, it will mark the first time in our history that such a step is taken, setting a moral and democratic precedent for the region and the world.”
As the electoral horizon approaches, it is imperative for our leaders to reflect on the values they wish to represent. The plea from BUYDG reinforces that silence in the face of injustice is complicity and encourages a vigorous reaffirmation of inclusivity in our democracy. Our country must ensur
