THE debate over the introduction of biometric voter identification at polling stations for the upcoming General and Regional Elections has once again ignited public discourse. While biometric systems have been widely touted as a means to enhance security of the elections, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has made a principled and practical decision in ruling out its implementation for the 2025 elections.

Chairperson Justice Claudette Singh’s decision, grounded in constitutional, logistical, and technical realities, reflects the importance of ensuring a credible electoral process, while respecting the legal framework within which elections are conducted. It is imperative that all stakeholders—political parties, civil society, and the general public—acknowledge the legitimate challenges associated with rolling out a biometric system within the available timeframe.
The feasibility study conducted by GECOM’s Chief Election Officer (CEO) rightly examined the pros and cons of biometric fingerprint identification at polling stations. The benefits are undeniable—increased security, reduced impersonation, and streamlined voter identification. However, these advantages must be weighed against serious challenges that cannot be ignored.

Among the most pressing concerns are technical issues, such as network failures, power outages and software malfunctions, which have disrupted elections in other countries. Data security risks also loom large, as storing sensitive biometric data presents a potential target for breaches, a risk already seen in systems such as India’s Aadhaar. Additionally, inclusivity concerns arise when considering elderly voters, manual labourers or those with physical impairments who may struggle with fingerprint scanning.
Beyond operational difficulties, the legal framework presents a significant roadblock. There is no current legislation that mandates biometric verification at polling stations. Implementing such a system without the necessary legal backing would amount to an unconstitutional imposition on voters. The

introduction of biometrics would require extensive legislative amendments, stakeholder consultations, procurement processes, staff training and public education campaigns—all of which cannot be reasonably accomplished before the elections.
GECOM has rightly reaffirmed its commitment to upholding electoral integrity within the bounds of the law. While biometric technology remains a viable long-term goal, the immediate focus must be on strengthening existing safeguards to prevent voter fraud, ensuring proper training of polling day staff and enhancing transparency measures in the conduct of elections.

Election security is not solely dependent on technology. Oversight mechanisms, strict adherence to electoral laws, and bipartisan co-operation remain critical in safeguarding democracy. Those advocating for biometrics should channel their efforts into meaningful electoral reforms that are legally sound and administratively feasible, rather than pushing for hasty, impractical solutions.

As the country approaches the next elections, the priority should be public confidence in a system that is free, fair, and transparent. GECOM’s decision is a responsible, lawful, and pragmatic approach that recognises the need for electoral advancements while ensuring that every Guyanese citizen retains their constitutional right to vote without unnecessary barriers.