Chief Justice throw’s out PNCR’s scrutineer case on voter address verification

…says such requirement would violate Guyana’s Constitution

Chief Justice Roxane George on Thursday throw out a case brought by Chief Scrutineer of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Carol Joseph, who had asked the court for mandates to not only verify that an address given when registering to vote exists but also that the applicant has connection to that address.
The case sought to repeal amendments made in 2022 to the National Registration Act, which removed the requirement of residency for citizens to vote in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana.
In her December 2024 application, Joseph had asked the High Court to issue an order mandating the verification of registrants’ addresses for the general and regional elections.
But the Chief Justice, in delivering her ruling virtually, reaffirmed her decisions in previous cases that there is no residency requirement to vote.
“The Order sought by the applicant would mean that she’s asking the court to introduce a residency requirement, about which this court ruled [previously]… and which would, importantly, be in violation of Article 159 (1) of the Constitution of Guyana,” she noted.
Article 159 outlines the qualifications, and disqualifications, for persons to register to vote in Guyana.
Joseph had argued, through her lawyers, that since the residency requirement was removed, there was a need now for a system to not only verify the addresses of persons but also establish their connection to the address. This, according to Joseph, is because some addresses either do not have buildings or have dilapidated or abandoned buildings, raising concerns that the absence of such a connection could contaminate the voters’ list for the upcoming elections.
Not a shred of evidence
The chief justice said Joseph failed to provide “a shred of evidence” to show this as well as outline how such as verification, that she is seeking, could be undertaken.
“If a person presents themselves for registration and gives an address for what turns out to have a dilapidated or abandoned building, or it’s the name of a village, or it is the High Court, for that matter, or none of the neighbours knows that person, none of the neighbours knows that the person lives in the area, the fact that the registration officer does not think they are connected the address claimed, does not mean that the person cannot be registered, or that their names must be deleted from the National Register of Registrants and by extension, the voter’s list,” the judge noted.
According to Justice George, in effect, Joseph asking the court to sanction the ability to remove the names of persons whose addresses have not been verified by making a connection to them. This, the judge, noted would be a breach of the separation of powers.
“The applicant [Joseph] thereby seeks to deprive persons of their constitutional right to vote,” the chief justice declared.
Attorney for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Kurt Da Sila, had argued in court that those registering to vote at Local Government Elections, as well as regional elections, under Article 73 (1), are required to be residing in the region in which they are voting thus the removal of the residency requirement “creates problems”.
The GECOM Counsel had noted that traditionally, general and regional elections have been held simultaneously in Guyana and prior to the 2022 amendments, there were systems in place to verify the addresses of persons wanting to register to vote.

Minimal restriction
While she agreed with arguments that persons’ residences and addresses may not be the same, Justice George pointed out that in the context of the Constitution and the legislation, when read as a whole, a person’s residence will be determined from the address they give at registration and this will have to be used for all elections.
“Election laws of Guyana are clearly meant to provide minimal restriction on the eligibility of Guyanese regarding the right to vote. It simply places the onus on persons to get registered in the place of their choice regarding where they want to vote, so that the names can be included in the Official List of Electors, which is clearly meant to be the source list for all elections…”
The Chief Justice added that the constitution does not support the disenfranchisement of citizens, hence, a person cannot be removed from the List of Electors because there was no connection to their address.
The chief justice further contended that if the legislature wanted to include a requirement for the verification of a person’s connection to an address, it would have said so.
“One cannot remove a person from the list because they happen to no longer live at a particular place, or it is not proven that they live at a particular place, or that the place has become derelict. The Constitution doesn’t so permit. And the Constitution does not permit a disenfranchisement of persons because the address they provided does not meet with the approval of the registration officer.”
“Therefore, I stated earlier, there’s no conflict between Article 73 (1) and 159 (1)… Article 159 (1) is about the right to vote, while article 73 (1) is about where a person would exercise this right. So, the application is dismissed,” Justice George indicated.
In dismissing the case, the Chief Justice concluded that the issues raised in this case were similar to a previous case filed by Joseph in 2022. Taking this into consideration, the Court will assess the cost.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall welcomed the ruling in court and lauded the clear reasoning of the court. He added that the court has guided the country at “a very important juncture on a very crucial issue.”
In response, the Chief Justice pointed out that the elections laws are all over the place and there is definitely “work to be done.”
Meanwhile, according to the PNCR following Friday’s ruling, Joseph has already instructed her lawyers to appeal the High Court’s decision.