No grounds for PNCR’s court case on verification of voters’ addresses

Last Updated on Wednesday, 25 December 2024, 21:49 by Writer

Attorney General Anil Nandlall says the People’s National Congress Reform’s (PNCR) is asking the High Court to make an unconstitutional order for the verification of the addresses of registrants because Guyana’s Constitution does not contain a residency requirement, but just the provision of an address at the time of registration.

“If I’m to put a requirement for residency there, then I’ll be running afoul of the Constitution,” he told Demerara Waves Online News.

Mr Nandlall said Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire had already settled that question in a case several years ago.

PNCR member, Carol Smith-Joseph earlier this week filed a court case, saying that there was need for verification of the addresses of registrants because checks have shown that addresses have on them no buildings, or dilapidated or abandoned houses in which no one lives or have lived for years; the addresses exist but no one at the address knows the Applicant/Registrant; the address is generic, for example it may be just the name of the village or town area. She fears that the integrity of General and Regional Elections and Local Government Elections and their results will be questionable, inaccurate and not credible.

However, the Attorney General said the PNCR’s case disregards the three qualifications—Guyanese citizenship, 18 years and older, registered—for the purposes of registration in contrast to before 1980 when there was a permanent residency requirement.

“The proceedings filed by Carol Joseph once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the constitutional requirement in respect of registration and qualification of electors for the purposes of elections in Guyana,” he told Demerara Waves Online News.

He said amendments to the National Registration Act in 2022 made it consistent with Guyana’s Constitution by removing requirements for a residency address and replaced it with an address. Prior to those changes, he said the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) had removed the names of registrants from the National Register of Registrants or did not complete the registration process if the verification shows that they were not at the stated of addresses. “By doing so, they were illegally removing persons from the register on the basis that the persons were not resident at that address,” he said.

According to the Attorney General, Ms Smith-Joseph’s effort was not the first attempt to remove the names of registrants on the basis of no residency; the first having been in 2019 when GECOM, under the chairmanship of Retired Justice James Patterson. As a result, a High Court case had been filed by Christopher Ram. Mr Nandlall said that in the Chief Justice’s “very reasoned, researched and elaborate judgement” explained the clear constitutional requirements for registration and voting.

Asked to deal with the issue of representativeness of electors in a Local Government constituency if an elector provides an address where he or she does not reside but votes, Mr Nandlall maintained that all that is required is an address rather than residency. “You cannot have two addresses on the list so wherever you’re casting that ballot, you are likely to be living at that address,” he said.

He said the onus is on electors to change their addresses to districts where they will be voting. He said the Claims and Objections exercise could fix that and “once they establish that you don’t live there, well then you’ll have to register at the place where you’re living but your name cannot be removed from the list on that basis.”

Mr Nandlall said the amendments were necessary after consultations by the PNCR, People’s Progressive Party Civic, Alliance For Change and GECOM with the Attorney General and the government. He accused the PNCR of “simply manufacturing objections as they’re going along”.