PNCR Chief Scrutineer’s case on residency of voters badly filed, arguments flawed- Attorney General

Last Updated on Monday, 17 March 2025, 22:15 by Writer

People’s National Congress Reform’s (PNCR) Chief Scrutineer, Carol Smith-Joseph’s request of the High Court for a judicial review of legislation governing the residency of voters has been badly filed, resulting in the court having no jurisdiction to hear her case, according to court papers filed by the State.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall also says in an affidavit that her arguments on the need for house-to-house verification of electors were flawed and so the reliefs that she are seeking should be refused.

He says Ms Smith-Joseph’s case seeks a judicial review, a process governed by the Judicial Review Act, but the reliefs being sought in the Fixed Date Application (FDA) in keeping with the Judicial Review Act and the “rudimentary principles of public law” leads to the “undisputed conclusion” that the High Court has no power under the Judicial Review Act or in public law to grant the reliefs claimed.

“It is common ground that judicial review proceedings are intended to review acts, omissions, and/or decisions of a public authority, statutory tribunal, or a public officer. These proceedings seek no such reliefs,” Mr Nandlall says in his submissions.

He further says the Applicant seeks to invoke this judicial review power to interpret legislation — a power that the Court does not have under the Judicial Review Act. “In this regard, the FDA is wholly misconceived and constitutes an abuse of process,” Mr Nandlall says.

The Attorney General acknowledged that the High Court could review the constitutionality of legislation, but the PNCR’s Chief Scrutineer did not contend in her FDA that the National Registration Act (NRA) was enacted in violation of Guyana’s Constitution, or that it is inconsistent or conflicts with the Constitution. He said the judiciary has no other review powers over legislation, and so could not concern itself with the desirability or undesirability of a piece of legislation, or review legislation because it is of the view that it is not good law.

He said Ms Smith-Joseph, in her submissions, was not contending that the legislation violates, is inconsistent or conflicts with the Constitution and she seeks no relief in that regard.

Ms Smith-Joseph’s position is that residential addresses provided by registrants, in keeping with the amended NRA, had turned up locations that had no buildings, or shown dilapidated or abandoned houses in which no one lives or has 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.

But the Attorney General says in his submissions that the PNCR activist, without alleging any constitutional infraction of any type, is asking the Court “to declare” the meaning of the word “verification” used in section 6 (4B) of the NRA, Chap. 19:08 (NRA), (as amended by Act No. 26 of 2022), to mean something other than what the clear language of the section says. The Applicant
requests this Honourable Court to read into the section, which only requires that the address be verified, or that a registrant lives at or is connected to that address. “To sum up, the Applicant is inviting the Court to commit numerous constitutional heresies,” he said.

He said Parliament enacted unambiguously that the address provided by the registrant is verified “and nothing else.” “We respectfully submit that in the circumstances of the case at bar, there is no ambiguity, uncertainty or inconsistency with the plain meaning of the words “verify” or “address” or in fact, any of the words of section 6 (4B) of the NRA, to warrant further interpretation, he said.

The State tendered a transcript of the Attorney General’s presentation during debate on the then Bill in the National Assembly in December, 2022.

He also referred to Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire’s ruling in a case in 2019 that since residency had been removed from the 1980 Constitution, that means that residency is no longer necessary for qualification for registration and by extension an elector. Turning his attention to Article 73 of the Constitution which states that residency is a requirement for electing persons to the 10 Regional Councils, Mr Nandlall said that provision was inferior to the governing provisions of Articles 59 and 159 on qualifications required of persons to be registered as electors to vote at an election. “The Constitution must be read as a whole with governing provisions prevailing over those that are subservient in order to attain the true meaning and purpose of the provisions,” he said.

Against that background, the Attorney General asked the Court to refuse the reliefs being sought by the PNCR Chief Scrutineer. Those reliefs that are being sought are that the NRA requires not only the verification of the existence of addresses claimed but also that the applicants reside at or are connected to those addresses.