Chief Justice urges reforming long-overdue electoral laws

Last Updated on Thursday, 3 April 2025, 18:34 by Writer

Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire on Thursday said Parliament needs to reorganise Guyana’s electoral laws governing residency although she dismissed an opposition People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) case on the issue.

“Something else has to happen. That’s a parliamentary issue,” she said after handing down her decision. She told Attorney General Anil Nandlall that he has to address the state of the electoral laws. “I’ve said it in previous cases. The election laws are all over the place. It’s very hard to manage, to navigate them,” she said.

The PNCR, shortly after, said the applicant, Chief Scrutineer Carol Smith-Joseph, has already instructed her lawyers to appeal the judge’s ruling to dismiss the address verification case.

“Guyana will never have fair and credible elections if persons can give GECOM any address that does not even belong to them including, according to AG Nandlall, the address of Guyana’s High Court.

The PNCR/APNU rejects this as ridiculous and a threat to democracy. We will continue our quest for a clean voters list, fingerprint biometrics, and an election process that has the full trust of the Guyanese people,” the PNCR added.

The Chief Justice said Article 159(1) and Article 72(1) are to be read together. With the Guyana Elections Commission’s Legal Officer, Kurt Da Silva saying that Article 72 means that there would have to be a separate list for Regional and other Local elections to comply with residency, she said that has to addressed. “How it will be addressed is another issue. That’s not for the Court to decide,” the Chief Justice added.

The Chief Justice said there is no residency requirement to vote and, as such, going to the address could only be that it exists rather than the registrant living there. “Given the entire schema and context of the various provisions, it is unclear why the legislature included that a registration or authorised officer is to visit addresses along with party scrutineers,” she said. She said it seems that the verification of an address by visit collides with Article 159(1). “This is a matter for parliament to address,” she said.

Justice George-Wiltshire said persons could not be blocked from registering or their names deleted from the National Register of Registrants if they give addresses that have a dilapidated or abandoned building, a village name or no one knows the person lives in the area or the Guyana Elections Commission’s Registration does not think that “the address [is] claimed”. “After the address is visited, the person’s registration will have to be completed and they would be assigned to a polling place that has that address within its boundaries,” she said.

She added that if a registrant no longer lives at an address or the place becomes uninhabited, that person could not be removed from the national register and by extension the voters list. The Chief Justice said the person could either seek a change of address or return to the area in which he or she was registered. If an address is changed, the judge said neither the GECOM official nor a political party scrutineer could refuse to comple the transfer.

On the matter of overseas-based Guyanese, the Chief Justice said they would have to return and vote in the area in which they were registered at an “address claimed” unless it is proven that they’re deceased or otherwise disqualified and provisions for the removal of their names are followed.”

The Chief Justice said the voters list could not be split between national and regional elections, and even if the elections are held separately “the fact remains that the list of electors for this election is based on the Official List of Electors which must be compiled based on Article 159(1) and the relevant law.