–Attorney-General Nandlall maintains

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (AG) Anil Nandlall, SC, has reiterated that residency is not a constitutional requirement for voting in Guyana, ahead of a March 17, 2025, hearing set by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, SC, to address an opposition challenge filed by Carol Smith-Joseph.
Smith-Joseph is a longstanding member of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) as well as the party’s Chief scrutineer. She is asking the High Court to compel the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to conduct a house-to-house verification of the addresses of registrants.

This challenge questions the legal framework governing voter registration and residency requirements, reigniting debates on the qualifications for participating in national elections.

During an interview outside the High Court in Demerara on Wednesday, AG Nandlall emphasised that the issue of residency had been definitively resolved by the courts, citing the landmark case of Christopher Ram v. Attorney General.
He noted that the ruling, delivered by the acting Chief Justice, was conclusive and remained unchallenged, as it was not appealed.

In the referenced case, the issue arose during discussions surrounding the scrapping of the voter database and the introduction of a house-to-house registration system.
Proponents of the database overhaul argued that it was necessary to remove individuals who were residing overseas and, therefore, allegedly ineligible to vote. However, Nandlall noted that this view was fundamentally flawed and contrary to constitutional law.

“Residency used to be a requirement under the 1966 Constitution and the 1970 Constitution,” Nandlall explained. However, he pointed out that it was removed in the 1980 Constitution.
The Attorney-General elaborated that under Guyana’s supreme law, the qualifications for voter registration and participation in elections do not include residency as a criterion.

Nandlall reasoned that this allows individuals residing in other countries—such as the United States or the United Kingdom—to retain their eligibility to vote in Guyanese elections, as long as they meet the other qualifications outlined in the Constitution.

Expanding on his legal submissions in the Christopher Ram case, Nandlall emphasised the Constitution’s clarity on the matter.
“You can have a fixed address in Queens, New York, or in London, and you are still qualified to vote in Guyana by virtue of the Constitution,” he said.
This, Nandlall argued, invalidates any claims or policies that seek to impose such requirements.

“On what basis is there a requirement that you must live at a particular address in Guyana in order to vote?” he questioned rhetorically.
Nandlall remains confident that the Constitution’s provisions will prevail.

“This issue has already been dealt with by the courts and sufficiently settled by the Chief Justice,” he asserted, adding that any attempt to reintroduce residency as a requirement would contradict the foundational principles enshrined in the 1980 Constitution.
“Any time any person is refused registration or would be refused the right to vote because of some deficiency in their address, that would be an abrogation and a violation of not only the Constitution, but that person’s constitutional right to vote,” the Attorney-General emphasised.

He went on to say: “I don’t know why they [the opposition] are filing this case, but they have the right to do so, and we will have to go through this whole ordeal of these arguments.
“These arguments are not new. I believe that everyone has accepted the Chief Justice’s ruling [in Christopher Ram v. Attorney General] as an exposition of the law. We have not changed the law in that regard. What we did was to make amendments to the National Registration Act to bring it in line with the Constitution.”

Smith-Joseph’s lawyer is Dexter Todd.