PNCR wants High Court to order house-to-house verification of registrants’ addresses to ensure credible elections

Last Updated on Thursday, 19 December 2024, 20:09 by Writer

People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member Carol Smith-Joseph has asked the High Court to order the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to conduct house-to-house verification of the addresses of registrants or the elections would not be credible.

“Without the interpretation of the court and the making of a declaration by the court, the integrity of the National Register of Registrants may be questionable, inaccurate and not credible, that without the interpretation of the court and the making of a declaration by the court, the integrity of General and Regional Elections and Local Government Elections and their results will be questionable, inaccurate and not credible,” she states in her affidavit.

The respondents are the Attorney General, Commissioner of Registration and the GECOM.

Saying that the issue is of “national concern”, Ms Smith-Joseph wants the High Court to declare that the National Registration Act requires not only the verification of the existence of addresses claimed but also that the applicants live at or are connected to those addresses.

Should she obtain the order for house-to-house verification of addresses, she further wants a second order that in conducting such an exercise for the purpose of inclusion in or amendments to the National Register of Registrants, the registration officer or an authorized officer must verify not only the existence of addresses claimed but also that the applicants/registrants live at or are connected to those addresses.

Through her battery of lawyers led by Dr Dexter Todd, Ms Smith-Joseph said if unless the Application is heard and determined on an urgent basis, the “current mode of verification by GECOM will be given cover of law and set a dangerous precedent for the future” and “the public’s confidence in the National Register of Registrants, General and Regional Elections, Local Government Elections and “the rule of law will be damaged irreparably.”

In her affidavit, the PNCR member states that the current mode of verification creates an improper situation in which the Commissioner is requiring the Registration Officer and other authorised personnel to verify addresses only to the exclusion of, or any reference to, the Applicants/Registrants connections.

Ms Smith-Joseph said that an amendment to the National Registration Act states that on receipt of an application, every registration officer shall by himself or an authorised officer verify by visit, the address claimed by a person who applies to be a first-time registrant or by an existing registrant who applies to change or correct his registered address.

Further, she notes that before the amendment the registration officer or an authorized officer verified not only the existence of addresses provided but also verified that the applicants live at or are connected to those addresses for the purpose of inclusion in or amendments to the National Register of Registrants.

The applicant to the court states that since the amendment of the Act, the registration officer or an authorized officer verifies the existence of addresses only, to the exclusion of, or any reference to the Applicants/Registrants connection to the address they claim, for the purpose of inclusion in, or amendments to, the National Register of Registrants.

Ms Smith-Joseph said that at least three issues have since presented as a result of the current practice—some of the 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.

“The new mode of verification leaves open the question of where the address claimed is not verified, either because of evident un-inhabitation, or lack of reasonable confirmation of the connection, or that it does not exist, does the Registration Officer or person authorized by GECOM maintain the information not verified and complete the transaction as requested or disallow the application or remove said person from the list, as the case may require,” she states in her affidavit.

She notes in her court papers that previously, GECOM registration staff, together with duly appointed scrutineers, verified that the applicants live at or are connected to those addresses.

As such, Ms Smith-Joseph says the amendment requires the court’s interpretation of the section to authorize the staff of the GECOM to verify not only the existence of the address but also the connection of the address to the Applicant/Registrant; that the lists used for Local Government Elections and General and Regional Elections are extracted from the same National Register of Registrants, and that the law requires the Applicant/Registrant to be ordinarily resident at the particular address or in the constituency and Local Authority Area for the purpose of voting or being a candidate in Local Government Elections, which means that the current mode of verification fails to satisfy the legal requirements for at least these elections.

Also representing Ms Smith-Joseph are attorneys-at-law Dexter Smartt, Shercola Exeter-Sardina and Candaice Adams.