By Roysdale Forde S.C- In the hallowed corridors of democratic governance, where the rule of law stands as the bulwark against executive caprice, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration’s precipitate thrust toward mandatory electronic identification (E-ID) cards emerges not as a beacon of progress, but as a perilous encroachment upon fundamental liberties. As Guyana grapples with porous borders and the specter of illicit migration – exemplified by the tragic October 27, 2025, bombing at a Georgetown fuel station, where the Venezuelan perpetrator entered undetected – the government’s fast-tracking of this biometric-laden regime smacks of political expediency over principled jurisprudence.
President Irfaan Ali’s September 16 proclamation of “large-scale implementation” within weeks, coupled with Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond’s October 29 vow to deport non-registrants post-grace period, heralds a surveillance state under the thin veil of national security. This op-ed contends that such haste contravenes Guyana’s constitutional safeguards, imperils privacy as an inalienable right, and risks entrenching authoritarian tendencies, all while echoing the very autocratic lapses this administration once decried.
At its core, the E-ID initiative, bolstered by a US$35.4 million contract with Veridos Identity Solutions in 2023 and a GYD 1 billion (US$4.8 million) 2025 budget allocation, promises streamlined services, from tax compliance via Guyana Revenue Authority integration to National Insurance Scheme enforcement. Still, this ostensibly benign digital panacea conceals a dystopian architecture: centralised biometric databases fusing fingerprints, facial scans, and iris data into a singular, trackable identifier. As articulated in my May 23, 2023, Kaieteur News column, “The E-ID Card Project is Laced with Inconsistencies,” “Contracts in Guyana have the tendency to sweeten the palate and plunge headlong into the labyrinth of misuse and inflated costs to outright theft of state funds.”
The PPP/C’s evasion of public tender processes, bypassing the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), flouts Article 212A of the Constitution, which mandates transparent fiscal accountability. This procedural sleight-of-hand not only invites fiscal malfeasance – echoing the unaccounted GYD 32 billion squandered on sugar industry “restructuring” – but also undermines the separation of powers, rendering Parliament a mere rubber stamp for executive fiat.
Worse, the E-ID’s mandatory remit, extending to citizens aged 14 and above for “daily transactions” like banking and employment, portends a chilling erosion of privacy. Article 40 of Guyana’s Constitution enshrines the right to personal liberty, while Article 138 safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures – protections that biometric surveillance inexorably subverts. The system’s interoperability with private-sector databases, as Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo touted on June 27, 2025, for “tracking foreigners,” inexorably extends to all Guyanese, fostering a panopticon where every transaction leaves a digital footprint.
Delays from integration glitches, admitted by Jagdeo in June, have now morphed into a rushed rollout, with Walrond’s grace period for migrants a mere sop to appease border anxieties. This opacity breeds exclusion: indigenous communities in remote Rupununi or low-income hinterland residents, lacking biometric enrollment access, face de facto disenfranchisement from services, contravening the non-discrimination imperative of Article 149.
International jurisprudence illuminates the folly of such unbridled digital ambition. As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India and a towering figure in global constitutional discourse, cautioned in the landmark 2018 Aadhaar judgment – upholding India’s biometric ID while delimiting its scope –
“The legitimate expectation of the Government that Aadhaar would be used sparingly to serve the public interest must be tempered by the right to privacy, which is intrinsic to Article 21 [of the Indian Constitution].” Chandrachud’s proviso underscores that even well-intentioned systems must yield to proportionality; Guyana’s E-ID, bereft of independent privacy impact assessments or parliamentary debate, flouts this maxim, risking data breaches that could expose 800,000 citizens to identity theft or state overreach.
No less prescient is the admonition from Justice R. Venkatarama Iyer, whose mid-20th-century wisdom on Indian jurisprudence resonates universally: “The Constitution is not a mere lawyer’s document; it is a vehicle of life, and its spirit is always the governing theme.” In my December 29, 2022, Kaieteur News piece, “Govt.’s Plans for New ID Cards Worrying,” I echoed this ethos, warning that “the PPP/C’s digital ID ambitions, shrouded in secrecy, threaten to digitise disenfranchisement.” Iyer’s invocation demands that Guyana’s “vehicle of life” not be hijacked by technological determinism; instead, the PPP/C must heed calls for legislative safeguards, akin to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), mandating consent, minimization, and redress.
The PPP/C’s E-ID sprint, precipitated by electoral proximity to the 2025 polls and Venezuelan border tensions, exemplifies a governance paradigm where security trumps scrutiny. As opposition voices, including Aubrey Norton’s prescient 2022 critiques, have long intoned, this is no mere administrative upgrade but a constitutional precipice.
To avert catastrophe, civil society must demand an immediate moratorium: convene a bipartisan commission for human rights audits, enshrine opt-out provisions, and tether biometrics to sunset clauses. Absent such rectitude, Guyana risks not modernisation, but the metamorphosis of democracy into a digitized despotism. The Guyanese polity deserves better; a polity where innovation serves sovereignty, not subjugates it.
