Acting Chief Justice Roxane George on Wednesday heard arguments in a case where a Peoples National Congress member challenged the Guyana Election’s Commission’s (GECOM) interpretation and application of Section 64B of the National Registration Act (NRA).
Attorney General Anil Nandlall
The challenged by the Opposition is to determine whether GECOM’s interpretation and application of Section 64B of the National Registration Act (NRA) comply with constitutional requirements and safeguard the integrity of the National Register of Registrants (NRR).
Peoples National Congress member Carol Smith-Joseph, represented by Attorneys Dexter Todd and Dexter Smartt, had filed a Fixed Date Application challenging GECOM’s current verification process.
Following Wednesday’s proceedings, the court established a timeline for the submission of affidavits and legal arguments.Submissions from Smith-Joseph’s legal team are due by February 14, while the respondents, including GECOM and the Attorney General, are expected to submit by February 20. The next clarification hearing is scheduled for March 17.
Attorney Dexter Todd
Outside the courtroom, Attorney Dexter Todd articulated his client’s concerns: “Prior to the amendment, in the registration process, there has always been connecting when it comes to the verification of an address. There has always been connecting the registrant to the address. With the amendment, what you have is that Section 64B only speaks to ‘address claimed.’ So, what the registration officers have been doing is verifying the address, but they have not been connecting the registrant to the address.”
Claiming that this practice could compromise the electoral process, Todd said,
“That has presented a serious, serious problem. Because it is from the register that the extractions are made. If you do not verify the information going into the register, you are going to have a problem…Some people have never seen the registrants. They don’t know [them]. They are totally unconnected,” he said.
Constitutional precedence
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, however, strongly defended GECOM’s actions and the amendments to the National Registration Act, citing constitutional precedence.
Acting Chief Justice Roxane George, SC
Speaking to reporters, he said: “Residency used to be a requirement under the 1966 Constitution and the 1970 Constitution. In the 1980 Constitution, it was removed. So, you could have been, or you can be, living anywhere in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and you have a fixed address at any one of those locations outside of Guyana, but that fact doesn’t disqualify you from voting at an election in Guyana because the supreme law of our country… doesn’t meet that requirement.”
He added: “Every law that is passed must be consistent with the Constitution, or that law will be inconsistent or would be unconstitutional to the extent of that inconsistency. This case is re-arguing that position all over again.”
This case echoes the landmark 2019 decision in Christopher Ram vs. Attorney General et al, where Chief Justice Roxane George ruled that residency is not a prerequisite for voter registration in Guyana. The case arose from a challenge to the scrapping of the database created under house-to-house registration. The Chief Justice upheld arguments that the 1980 Constitution removed residency as a qualification for voter registration, allowing citizens living overseas to remain on the electoral list.
That ruling was essential in clarifying voter registration laws, particularly as they relate to non-resident Guyanese. It was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020, with both courts affirming that the Constitution supersedes any conflicting statutory provisions.
Attorney General Nandlall referenced this ruling to reporters after Wednesday’s hearing, stating: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law or practice inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency. This was affirmed in 2019, and remains the governing principle.”
The current case hinges on the interpretation of Section 64B of the National Registration Act, as amended. According to Todd, the amendments have introduced ambiguities by focusing on the “verification of address claimed” rather than establishing a clear connection between the registrant and their claimed address.
He argued, “What the registration officers have been doing is verifying the address but failing to connect the registrant to that address. This lack of connection undermines the accuracy of the NRR, and could lead to voters being registered in constituencies where they do not belong. Local and regional elections depend on accurate geographical data, and this process must reflect that.”
Nandlall countered that the amendments do not alter the fundamental principles of voter registration, but address inconsistencies between the National Registration Act and the Constitution.
“It was drafted when the previous Constitutions were in force. So, if you adjust that Constitution now, you are supposed to adjust the law to ensure that the law is in sync with the Constitution. That was never done”.
