– Gov’t lays out case for continuation of exercise

IN defence of the ongoing house-to-house registration, Attorney-General Basil Williams has put to the High Court a compelling case that the national exercise is legal.
In an Affidavit in Defence, the Attorney-General, through his Deputy, Solicitor-General Deborah Kumar, provided a long list of legislation that provides for house-to-house registration, thereby rubbishing the applicant, Christopher Ram’s contention that the process is illegal.

Kumar, in laying the basis of her argument, pointed out that the National Registration Amendment Act, Chapter 19:08 allowed for the Guyana Elections Commission to use the Official List of Electors (OLE) from the 2001 General and Regional Elections as the base to commence continuing registration.

It was noted that the amendment to the legislation in 2005 also provided for the establishment of one or more offices in each registration district to facilitate, as far as practicable, the registration of every eligible person resident at the qualifying date in a registration district. “The amendment ceased office-based registration, that is, the electors were required to go to registration offices to be registered,” the deputy solicitor-general said. Failure to register, according to the amended legislation, could result in a summary conviction, if found guilty.

“That Parliament in its wisdom then introduced on the 5th of December 2007 Bill No. 27 of 2007 which was referred to as the National Registration Amendment Bill of 2007 and the explanatory memorandum of the bill clearly provided: ‘The thrust of this bill is to provide for the required house-to-house registration for the purpose of all elections, local government elections and general elections,’” the solicitor-general further pointed out. The explanatory memorandum, according to her, clearly indicated that the new direction of the Elections Commission was house-to-house registration.

It was noted that the Parliament, by the National Registration Act. No. 31 of 2007, assented to by then President Bharat Jagdeo, introduced a section 4 (a), which paved the way for registration officer to obtain, as far as practicable, the application for registration of every eligible person, by way of house-to-house registration.

Kumar stated that the language of the Amendment is mandatory in nature, however, she pointed out that the legislature left the old provision Section 4 (a), thereby maintaining the position that registration could also be office-based.

“However, the commission is nevertheless now required by the new provision to ensure that the house-to-house registration process is carried out. It follows that if electors for some reason are unable to participate in the house-to-house registration process, the opportunity for registration is still available to them through the office-based process,” the deputy solicitor-general explained. The National Registration Act No. 31 of 2007 also introduced an amendment to Section 9 of the principal Act by substituting sub-section one with another. The substitute laid the foundation for the creation of a central register inclusive of a computerised database of information of the originals of the registration records, in addition to the originals of the registration records of all persons registered under the house-to-house registration process.

AGREEMENT
The deputy solicitor general noted that it was the Elections Commission, in accordance with the legislation, agreed that house-to-house registration be conducted every 10 years.
Notably, by the National Registration (Residents) Order of 2008, the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) ordered persons to register under a process of house-to-house Registration between January 7, 2008 and July 4, 2008.
Kumar, in her Affidavit in Defence, was keen on pointing out that there was no challenge to the process of house-to-house registration as being unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect.

“(The) decision was taken by the commission over 10 ( ten) years ago that house-to-house registration was necessary for ensuring compliance with the commission’s mandate under Article 162 of the Constitution, namely to issue all such instructions and take such action as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance…” the deputy solicitor-general pointed out.

Kumar said Christopher Ram is yet to demonstrate to the court how the process is unconstitutional, and how it will disenfranchise electors. “There is no evidence before the court to illustrate and substantiate the assertion that persons will be disenfranchised and the applicant is put to strict proof of the averments therein,” she said while emphasising that house-to-house registration is legal.

On the issue of residency, Kumar told the court that the law clearly states that a person ‘must be resident in Guyana’ in order to qualify under the house-to-house registration process. The deputy solicitor general, therefore, submitted to the court that the Elections Commission is acting in accordance with Article 162 in proceeding with house-to-house registration as one which is expedient to ensure impartiality and fairness as it relates to the registration of electors.

“The decision taken by the commission is a policy decision by a constitutional body with that express remit. The court is not competent to address issues of policy relating to the conduct of elections and the registration of electors,” Kumar said, noting that the CCJ had pronounced on this matter.

In presenting its Consequential Orders delivered on July 12, the CCJ said: “Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in GECOM), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held. It would not therefore be right for the court, by the issuance of coercive orders or detailed directives, to presume to instruct these bodies on how they must act and thereby pre-empt the performance by them of their constitutional responsibilities.”

GECOM was added as a party in the consolidated no-confidence case by the CCJ. On May 1, 2019, GECOM, through an affidavit filed by the then Chairman Justice (ret’d) James Patterson, provided evidence to support its decision to conduct house-to-house registration. The unchallenged evidence revealed that a decision was taken by the commission over 10 years ago that house-to-house registration was necessary for ensuring compliance with the commission’s mandate under Article 162. On July 24, 2018, the entire commission unanimously decided that house-to-house registration should be held in 2019 in preparation for the next General and Regional elections which were not due until 2020. The National Assembly, through the 2019 National Budget, provided the necessary financial resources for the commission to facilitate national registration.