– Chief Justice says GECOM registration exercise not unconstitutional

…but process must not deregister eligible Guyanese

The ongoing House-to-House Registration being undertaken by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is within the confines of the Constitution, and is therefore legal, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled on Wednesday.

The Acting Chief Justice, at the time, was delivering her judgment in a case challenging the constitutionality of House-to-House Registration brought before the High Court by Chartered Accountant Christopher Ram, in which, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, and the Attorney General Basil Williams were the named respondents.

Justice George-Wiltshire ruled that the Constitution and the Laws of Guyana provide for the conduct of House-to-House Registration as a form of verification – a position that was argued by the Attorney-General and the attorneys that represented the Chief Elections Officer – Senior Counsel Neil Boston and Roysdale Forde.

As such, she ruled that the June 11 Order published in the Official Gazette by the then Chairman of Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson was in compliance with established laws. The order paved the way for the House-to-House Registration exercise to be conducted from July 20, 2019 to October 20, 2019 – a period of three months.

The order, cited as the National Registration (Residents) Order 2019, stated: “Persons to whom this Order applies shall, in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, be registered under the process of house-to-house registration with reference to October 31, 2019 and the registration shall begin on July 20, 2019 and end on October 20, 2019.” It also applies to all persons qualified to be electors and all who, on the qualifying date of October 31, 2019, shall have attained the age of 14 years old.

Ram, through his attorney Anil Nandlall, had argued that in addition to the national exercise being unconstitutional, it clashes with the Article 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution and the judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). He submitted to the court that the order was issued days before the CCJ invalidated the appointment of Justice Patterson as Chairman of GECOM and validated the No-Confidence Motion – which triggered the need for early elections.

But the Chief Justice, on Wednesday, said “there was no conservatory order or other restraining order preventing the then chairman of GECOM from acting, even though his chairmanship was the subject of a challenge in one of the appeals.”

In addition to the fact that there was no Conservatory Order preventing Justice Patterson from acting, Chief Justice George-Wiltshire drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the order merely confirmed a decision of the Elections Commission taken since July, 2018. Further, she pointed out that the National Registration (Residents) Order 2019 was issued before the CCJ delivered its initial judgment on June 18, and ahead of the July 12 issuance of consequential orders.

The Chief Justice iterated that there was nothing stopping the Elections Commission from carrying out its functions, and more so, a decision it had taken before a No-Confidence Motion was put before the National Assembly, and before the CCJ delivered its judgment in the consolidated No-Confidence Motion cases and the GECOM Chair appointment matter.
“I do not see how a House-to-House Registration exercise violates Article 106 (6) and (7). The CEO and GECOM have no role in the implementation of Article 106 (6) and as regards of Article 106 (7) GECOM could conduct the House to House Registration or any other verification process, for that matter, in the context of the peculiar circumstances that are extant following the NCM,” the Chief Justice ruled.

While the constitutionally mandated deadline for the conduct of elections subsequent to a No-Confidence Motion has passed (March 21, 2019), Chief Justice George-Wiltshire pointed to the fact that to date there is no date fixed for which General and Regional Elections would be held. She reminded the parties in the matter that Article 106 (7) of the Constitution includes a proviso through which, the National Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of all elected members, could extend the period for the conduct of elections.

Nonetheless, with an election pending, the Chief Justice said the House-to-House Registration could be affected in part. “The speed and timeframe within which House-to-House Registration may have to be conducted may be affected but it does not eliminate it as a verification process,” the Chief Justice explained while iterating that by virtue of the of Article 162 of the Constitution and the National Registration Act, House-to-House Registration is not unconstitutional.

Office-based registration
However, in pointing to the National Registration Act, the Chief Justice noted that it also provides for the establishment of offices for the purpose of receiving applications for registration, and as such there are two methods by which registration can be done – House to House or at the Divisional or District Offices.

As such, the Chief Justice said as GECOM registers electors it may have to consider other methods of verification of the list that could be utilised – whether in conjunction with or separate from House-to-House Registration. “While pursuant to Article 160 and 162, GECOM is an independent body that is not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority and while it is incumbent on GECOM to produce a credible list and a credible election, it is subject to the Constitution and the laws, and it cannot act as though it is in a normal registration for election cycle.

Nevertheless, it would not be for the court to determine that House-to-House Registration should or should not be conducted more so that the order includes the registration of persons who are 14 years and over to whom would be issued National Identification cards, this aspect cannot be ignored, also not unconstitutional or unlawful,” Justice George-Wiltshire said.

In addressing another element of the case, the Chief Justice ruled that persons, who were previously registered, even if they now reside overseas, cannot be removed from the National Register of Registrants unless they are deceased or have been disqualified. As such, persons cannot be deregistered if they fail to register during the ongoing House-to-House Registration and should be allowed to vote in the area or district for which they have been registered.