–advocates of this system are aware of legal implications, Ramkarran says

RALPH Ramkarran, a prominent political figure, and attorney-at-law is once again cautioning against rushing into constitutional amendments to facilitate biometric voting.

The former Speaker of the National Assembly has repeatedly emphasised that any legal changes to voter identification must not obstruct the constitutional rights of qualified voters.

In an opinion piece published over the weekend, Ramkarran argued that imposing biometric identification, particularly the use of digitised fingerprints as the sole method of verification, would create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters, which would be unconstitutional under Articles 59 and 159 of the Guyana Constitution.

This legislation he explained, safeguards the right of all Guyanese citizens who are 18 years and over and who registered to vote, from any obstacles that could prevent them from participating in elections.

“Therefore, legal obstacles placed in the path of voters that obstruct them from voting if they are qualified under articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution, namely, they are Guyanese, over the age of 18 and registered to vote, are unconstitutional. This is the view that has been subsisting since 2001 and is known to those who are advocating for biometric voting, that is, the use of digitised fingerprints as the sole means of identification to enable a person to vote. Yet, some are not convinced, and others ignore it,” Ramkarran explained.

Speaking out against calls for biometric voting, Ramkaran pointed to the longstanding legal precedent set since 2001, citing the Esther Pereira case, which reaffirmed that any changes to voter identification must align with constitutional protections. He stated too that it is clear from this history that imposing mandatory biometric identification—without an amendment to the Constitution—would violate the basic rights of voters.

Despite this, the People’s National Congress /Reform (PNC/R) and Alliance For Change (AFC) opposition continues to advocate for the use of biometric identification to combat voter fraud.
Vincent Alexander, a Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) commissioner, and strong advocate of biometric identification of voters was quoted in a January 19 Demerara Waves publication as saying: “I am personally looking at the question of the unconstitutionality of the fingerprints as the primary source of identification and seeking some legal advice on that matter.”

While Ramkaran acknowledges the concerns about electoral integrity, he argued that the case for biometric voting lacks credible evidence. He asserts that introducing biometric identification as the primary method for voter verification, particularly without substantial proof of issues such as multiple voting, would be an undue burden on voters and could be seen as a politically motivated move.

Ramkaran also drew a historical parallel, reminding the public of the 1997 elections when a law requiring a Voter ID card as the sole means of identification was supported by both the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the People’s National Congress (PNC) and passed unanimously in Parliament.

After the elections, the PNC challenged the constitutionality of the law, leading to the Esther Pereira case. The court ruled in favour of the PNC, striking down the law as unconstitutional, and reinforced the principle that any electoral reform must be carefully weighed against constitutional rights.

Considering this history, Ramkaran argued that it would be politically and legally unwise to pursue major constitutional reforms to enable biometric voting based on unsupported claims of widespread electoral fraud. He warned that a rush to amend the Constitution to accommodate partisan political demands could set a dangerous precedent.

Ramkaran’s concerns are amplified by the current debate within the GECOM about the future of biometric voting. While GECOM’s Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, recently ruled that biometric data could not be made the sole means of voter identification, she suggested that it could be used as an additional tool, if supported by new legislation.

Like Alexander, some persons continue to advocate for its expanded use, arguing that biometric identification would help address concerns about voter fraud.

However, Ramkaran stressed that any proposal to make biometric identification mandatory must be accompanied by a constitutional amendment, and there needs to be compelling, evidence-based justification for such a significant change to the electoral system.