To implement an untested, costly biometrics registration system is not currently practicable

Dear Editor,
The year 2024 was dominated by news on Exxon’s lopsided contract, the Natural Resources Fund, allegations of corruption and racism, and a debate on the prospects of introducing biometrics at polling sites.
My position on biometrics has been partly expressed in my letter of November 30, 2024. Suffice to say that the debate to incorporate biometrics into the voting process continues to make its mark in this election year, 2025.
I will confine my analysis to the politics of biometrics. The Opposition’s views (as expressed by Mr. Sherwood Lowe, Mr Lincoln Lewis. Dr Henry Jeffrey, Mr Norman Browne, and Mr Lelon A Saul) on biometrics are incongruent with those of the governing PPPC. The PPPC’s views approximate those reflected in the independent writings of Messrs. Hargesh Singh, Harry Nawbatt, Kit Nascimento and Ralph Ramkarran.
Among the obstacles to biometrics at polling sites is the cost factor, especially in the context that no one knows if biometrics would produce better results than the existing folio system, since no feasibility or pilot project on its viability has been conducted. It is estimated that if Guyana were to procure 1,500 mobile biometrics registration kits (MBRK) for the estimated 2,500 voting sites, the cost would approximate US$4.8M.
There is also the further pitfall that any possibility of introducing personal biometric registration kits (PBRK) into the voting system could not proceed unless there is a constitutional amendment, in accordance with Article 164 of the Guyana Constitution.
There have been mixed reactions to biometrics in the countries that embrace this technology. In Albania, for example, the failure of biometrics at their most recent polls caused a disruption of voting in several counties, and the mechanical method had to be reverted to. If this happens in Guyana, there might be social upheaval; not to mention swift court challenges to the election results. Caution must therefore be exercised in the consideration of introducing biometrics into the voting system.
“There are numerous ways in which an election can be stolen, and devoting massive resources to advanced registration – even if they are well implemented and work perfectly – may displace fraudulent activities to other areas of the process.” (ACE Project).
This scenario happened at the 2020 National and Regional Elections. Rigging occurred not at the polling stations, but at the tabulation centre. Election data returns were manipulated by top GECOM staff. At the declaration of the initial results, the PPPC was deprived of 3,855 votes, while the incumbent APNU+AFC was gifted 19,008 votes.
After the recount, the PPPC valid figures (3,855) were restored, and the APNU+AFC invalid votes (of 19,008) were deducted from their total votes.
Could anyone explain how biometrics would have prevented that attempt at rigging?
PPPC-aligned advocates feel that should biometrics become an element, or the central element, in determining voter identification, thousands of voters, particularly overseas-based, would become casualties in the process, unless suitable measures are put in place to ensure that they are not disenfranchised, except in the case of death.
The PNCR-aligned advocates and others are concerned about allegations of impersonation, but there is no credible evidence to support that position.
Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield stated in the presence of the then Chair of GECOM, Dr Steve Surujbally, that the existing folio system is robust (In the folio, there are the voter’s photograph, his biometrics fingerprint, and other personal data). Mr Lowenfield indicated that impersonation at voting stations is not possible. “I think we need to put to rest the concept that a man can leave polling station A in Cummingsburg and go across to Alberttown or Queenstown and hop around. It’s just not possible.” (Guyana Times: July 3, 2020).
His views are supported by his successor as well as by all the international and local observer groups.
Guyana has experienced a series of rigged elections, and people are therefore concerned about integrity in the process; and there is, as well, the need to allay their fears. It is in the best interest of every Guyanese to have a voting system that is fair and sturdy, and which generates confidence in the people. Not having biometrics as a component of voting does not compromise the existing folio system. I doubt whether Guyanese would support, at this time, an untested and very costly biometrics system at voting sites.
The results of a pilot project (or feasibility study) should show the way forward. It is also noted that every process in the election system needs to be robust and transparent: at voting stations, at tabulation centres, at management and oversight levels.

Yours truly,
Dr Tara Singh