GECOM’s Claims & Objections period: Despite claims of “bloated voters list”, Opposition fails to file objection

Despite their sustained public complaints about issues with the voters list, the political opposition did not submit any objections to the list during the last claims and objections exercise held by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) last month.
During the electoral body’s first Claims and Objections exercise for the year a handful of objections were received, however none of these were filed by any of the opposition parties objecting.
This is in stark contrast to the continuous actions of political opposition parties, namely the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), which continue to complain about the Official List of Elector (OLE), and calls for the removal of voters notwithstanding legal ramifications.
Accusations from the Opposition members, including Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Norton, and AFC Leader, Nigel Hughes, include continuous claims of dead voters and illegal voters being on the list. However, the opposition continues to fail to produce any evidence to back up their claims.
Speaking with Guyana Times GECOM Commissioner, Sase Gunraj confirmed that no objections were received from the APNU, or AFC during the last Objections period which ran from January 2 – 22.
“During that period, a total of nine objections were filed of which 6 were upheld. Notably, none came from the political parties,” Gunraj confirmed.
“In light of repeated statements from several opposition figures that persons who are not entitled to be registered are being registered, that persons who they personally know to have died are still on the list, not a single objection emanated from them. Importantly, the opposition has a scrutineer, paid for by GECOM, positioned at every registration office.
In spite of all of this, no objection has been made by them, individually or collectively.”
Over the past few months, the opposition has heightened their calls for the scrapping of the OLE and the National Register of Registrants (NRR) from which GECOM extracts the OLE. This is notwithstanding GECOM having made it categorically clear constitutional reform would be needed before GECOM could act on any such suggestions. In 2019, Chief Justice Roxanne George ruled that names cannot be removed from the NRR except in the case of death.
Only last week, Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo in responding to the Opposition’s repeated claims about the integrity of the voters’ list, said that the registration process was rigorous and carefully monitored, highlighting that once a person is registered, their name can only be removed in the event of death.
He dismissed the Opposition’s argument that persons who have migrated should be removed from the list.
Of recent the Opposition has also intensified its demands for the introduction of digitalised biometrics as a precondition for voter registration and voting.
However, the Vice President had rejected these proposals since last year when he had said that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) party will never support proposals that hinder the process and will not fall for the traps being set by the opposition.

Biometrics
In the last week of January, GECOM had confirmed that biometric voter identification will not be introduced for the upcoming General and Regional Elections- citing legal, technical, security and infrastructural challenges.
Despite public discussions touting the benefits of biometric, the decision by GECOM Chairman, Justice Claudette Singh, has clarified that the introduction of such technology is not feasible within the current timeframe and legislative framework.
The debate surrounding biometrics stems from allegations of voter impersonation at polling stations, and Opposition political parties have argued that biometric fingerprinting could safeguard the integrity of the electoral process, offering a more accurate and secure means of voter identification.
However, GECOM explained that there would be technical challenges in which the reliability and accuracy of biometric systems can be impacted by poor network connectivity, power outages, hardware malfunctions, and software glitches. The Commission explained that these technical issues have led to delays in the voting process and raised concerns about the effectiveness of using biometrics for voter identification.
GECOM explained that remote areas often lacked the necessary infrastructure to support biometric technology, making it difficult to ensure universal access to this voting method. It also noted that, limited access to electricity and internet connectivity in some areas hindered the effectiveness of the system.
Against this backdrop, the Commission reminded that within the context of Guyana, there is no legal provision and therefore, any such introduction at the place of poll would be unconstitutional since it will impose additional conditions on a person’s right to vote.
GECOM reassured the public that it remains committed to ensuring free, fair, and credible elections. Despite not implementing biometrics, the Commission promises to strengthen existing safeguards to prevent electoral fraud and uphold transparency.