Attacks on GECOM Chair politically motivated – AG

…slams Opposition’s biometrics push

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall has defended the recent decision taken by the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), (Ret’d) Justice Claudette Singh, to not introduce digital biometrics at the 2025 General and Regional Elections.
The Opposition-aligned commissioners on the seven-member Elections Commission have been advocating for the implementation of biometric fingerprint identification for voting in order to prevent voter fraud at the 2025 polls, which is slated for later this year.
But GECOM recently rejected the proposal, citing legal, technical, security and infrastructural challenges its implementation could pose.
Despite public discussions touting the benefits of biometric, the decision by GECOM Chairman has clarified that the introduction of such technology is not feasible within the current timeframe and legislative framework.
The Opposition has been critical of the GECOM Chairperson’s decision, noting that biometrics voting provides a crucial step toward mitigating electoral fraud by ensuring that each voter’s identity is verified before they cast their ballot.
However, AG Nandlall contended that there are several systems in place to prevent any voter fraud at the upcoming polls, adding that biometrics of voters – fingerprints, photos and distinguish physical marks – are already manually taken at registration.
“So, we have biometrics already in the system and we have several safeguards to ensure that a wrong person can’t come and vote. So, let me assure you that there are multiple mechanisms in place [to prevent voter fraud,” Nandlall stated during his weekly programme – Issues in the News, on Tuesday evening.
According to the Attorney General, these safeguards include the list of voters at each polling stations, the gamut of polling staff including agents from the various political parties who are present throughout the entire process and the proof of vote whereby persons are required to mark their fingers with ink after voting.

Dismiss
Nandlall went onto dismiss the Opposition’s argument against manual biometrics, pointing out that the implementation of fingerprint biometrics would introduce an unconstitutional requirement for voters that could disenfranchise persons.
He reminded of the Esther Perreira case, which overturned the 1997 elections after National Identification (ID) Cards were deemed a requirement to vote thus disenfranchising Guyanese. In fact, he noted that it was the current GECOM Chair, Justice Singh who had presided over that case and upheld the constitution when she ruled in favour of Perreria – a People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) supporter and cut short then People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government’s term in office by two years.

Upholding constitution
Now, Justice Singh is doing the same thing – upholding the constitution but because her decision is not in favour of the PNC-led Opposition, she is on the receiving end of criticisms by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) parties.
“Claudette Singh has made it very clear to them in a statement that if you [introduce fingerprint biometrics now], it’s the same thing as was done in the 1997 elections. And the same Claudette Singh ruled that [the Opposition] were right then. Now, she’s ruling the same way but it doesn’t suit them now so she’s wrong now. That’s the point I want to make. Claudette Singh ruled on the identical principle in Esther Perreira in relation to the ’97 elections. They were happy; they won; they were right. Now, it’s the same principle; they’re committing the same legal wrong [but] she’s wrong now because it doesn’t suit them,” the AG argued.
Nandlall recalled that it was the representatives of the PNC-led APNU+AFC Administration who had selected Justice Singh for the then Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to submit to President David Granger to appoint as GECOM Chair in 2019 after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) had ruled against the unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson.
“So, Claudette Singh she was their nominee… [But] when Claudette Singh did not aid and abet them to steal the 2020 elections, Claudette Singh obviously became their sworn enemy. You see, they expected that Claudette Singh would have conspired with [Keith] Lowenfield – then Chief Elections Officer and [then Returning Officer, Clairmont] Mingo and them to defraud the electorate. That is what they expected. But Claudette Singh did not do that… and they were obviously shocked when she did not participate,” he posited.
Moreover, the Attorney General went onto to respond to the Opposition’s constant accusation that Justice Singh, who has the tiebreaking vote on the seven-member Elections Commission, is always siding with the three Government-nominated GECOM Commissioners.
He posited, “…you’re hearing that Claudette Singh has never voted once for them. But if on every occasion, their position is contrary to the law and contrary to the constitution, what you want the lady to do? When your position was consistent with law, she ruled in your favour in Esther Perreira and she threw the PPP government out of office… Now, because she’s ruling in a way you don’t like and she’s not encouraging you and supporting your skullduggery, she’s now bad and she’s now only voting for the PPP.”
Nevertheless, Nandlall believes that the Opposition’s push to use digital biometrics is just an excuse to cover their eventual loss at the upcoming polls.
“Because they are likely to lose, they want to come now with all these technical artifices so they can fault it in the end. So, they come up with the idea of biometrics… And Claudette Singh – the judge who has authoritatively settled the law in Guyana on the issue of voting and the qualification for voting, has said to them, again… [that] biometrics is just like the ID card in Esther Perreira… They want another requirement that is additional to what the constitution prescribes… To do that would be unconstitutional.”
“[The Opposition] are therefore being deliberately obtuse and they’re being deliberately obstructionist to create the foundation so they can say when they lose the elections that the system defrauded them or worst yet, they can boycott the elections. In either case, they want to sow the seed to cause mayhem, violence, riots and disorder in this country. That is what they’re doing, that is their game plan,” the attorney general posited.