ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, SC, has continued to criticise the opposition’s calls for the implementation of biometric voting ahead of the 2025 elections, arguing that it is a violation of the Constitution of Guyana and a strategic move to discredit the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) ahead of the polls.

Speaking during his weekly programme, ‘Issues in the News,’ Nandlall asserted that the opposition’s persistent advocacy for a biometric voting system is a calculated effort to lay the groundwork for contesting the election results in the event of a loss.

The opposition, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR)-led A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Alliance for Change (AFC) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), contend that without biometric verification, GECOM will be unable to ensure a credible election.

CANNOT WIN FAIRLY

“When they realise—as they have realised now—that they cannot win a fair election, when they realise that they cannot secure the ballots of the electorate in majority to win an election, they always direct their attack and their scrutiny to the electoral system and GECOM,” Minister Nandlall said as he gave a historical review of the opposition’s tainted track record.

Although the opposition is aware that imposing a biometric requirement is unconstitutional, the Attorney-General stated that they continue to promote this narrative because they are poised to lose the elections by a significant margin. He made it clear that the introduction of biometric voting at polling stations would contradict Guyana’s supreme law, as the Constitution provides every eligible citizen the right to vote once they are registered.

According to him, any attempt to introduce biometric verification at polling stations would directly infringe on the rights of registered voters.

AG Nandlall pointed out that the courts have already ruled on the matter, upholding that once a person’s name is on the Official List of Electors (OLE), they are entitled to vote.

SAME PLOY USED IN 1997 ELECTIONS

The Attorney-General referenced the election petition filed by Esther Perreira challenging the validity of the 1997 elections.

He noted that the opposition had initially demanded the introduction of voter identification (ID) cards for the elections but later opposed it after the People’s National Congress (PNC) lost the General and Regional Elections that year.

“They lost the elections, and they started the burning, beating, and looting in the streets. Among the things they challenged in the election petition was the use of that very ID card they asked for…,” AG Nandlall recalled, reflecting on that dark chapter in Guyana’s history.

Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, the presiding judge in the case and the current chairperson of the GECOM, had ruled that the requirement of ID cards for voting was unconstitutional under Guyana’s Constitution, rendering the 1997 elections null and void. Consequently, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government’s term was cut short after just three years, leading to new elections.
“Claudette Singh—no other than Claudette Singh—was the judge who heard that election petition. And Claudette Singh ruled in their [PNC] favour. Claudette Singh ruled that the election was null and void because of the use of the ID cards. Claudette Singh, citing the Constitution, stated that the law requiring an ID card in order to vote added a requirement the Constitution did not have. As a result, that law collided with the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional,” Nandlall explained.

DIRECTING ATTENTION FROM THEMSELVES

Commenting on the opposition’s insistence on biometrics for the upcoming polls, Nandlall stated: “They are building the hopes of their supporters, [telling them] that they will …lose because of GECOM and because of the elections not being free and fair. That has been their strategy for decades now. They need to direct the attention away from themselves.

“They are not going to speak about their dismal performance; they are not going to speak about the neglect of their supporters over the past five years. They are going to focus energy and attention on GECOM and the electoral process. They will build a case against the electoral process and against GECOM, and when they lose, they will have a basis to tell their supporters, ‘This is exactly what we were speaking about.’”

The Attorney-General also criticised the opposition’s habit of changing its stance on electoral matters to serve its own interests, arguing that its demand for unconstitutional biometric requirements is merely a repeat of past tactics.

ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST VOTER IMPERSONATION

AG Nandlall also rebutted the opposition’s claim that adequate safeguards are not in place to prevent voter impersonation at the polls.

“We have several safeguards to ensure that a wrong person cannot come and vote… You have to be registered, your name must be on a list, and you can only vote at the polling station where your name is on that list. When you turn up at that polling place, you have a presiding officer, an assistant presiding officer, a poll clerk and you have a representative of every political party seated there as polling agents. There is the ink/stain that is irremovable…,” the legal affairs minister emphasised.

He explained, “So now, they want biometrics. I have said to you over and over again that we have biometrics in our system already. We have fingerprints, we have photographs, we have distinguishing marks. All of that is in our database.”

The Attorney-General further stated that to be eligible for voter registration, individuals must be at least 18 years old and either a citizen of Guyana by birth, descent, or naturalisation, or a Commonwealth citizen who has resided in Guyana for one year or more.

The GECOM Chairwoman has maintained that any major changes to the voting process must be made in accordance with the law and through wide stakeholder consultations.

On January 16, 2025, she ruled against introducing biometric fingerprint identification for voting, citing feasibility issues, legislatives changes and limited time.

“It is GECOM’s place to say that. GECOM is empowered with a plenitude of power to determine how elections are to be held. They are independent; they must determine, in accordance with the law, what can be done and what cannot be done. But the laws, in their current form, must be complied with,” said Nandlall, as he endorsed the GECOM chair’s position.

In response to the opposition’s continued attacks on Justice Singh, Nandlall reminded them and his viewers that she was nominated for the position by former President David Granger under the APNU+AFC administration.