BY harping incessantly on biometrics, Lincoln Lewis has become the mouthpiece for an opposition that knows it simply can’t win against the PPP/C in a free and fair election. Having tried to steal votes in 2020 and failed, they are now insisting on biometrics as a panacea to a system that they themselves tried to hijack.

The riggers of 2020 and their enablers in APNU+AFC are using biometrics as a ruse to blame the PPP/C for blocking so-called “reform.”
The problem with the PNC/R is that they don’t like to lose and when it is apparent that they will lose in the upcoming elections, they’re preemptively blaming it on Senior Counsels Ralph Ramkarran and retired judge, Justice Claudette Singh.

The APNU+AFC wants GECOM to adopt a biometric system at polling stations nationwide. Lewis refers to it as a “key reform that would ensure free and fair elections in Guyana.”
By refusing to spell out exactly what is so flawed with the current system, Lewis and company have failed to present a compelling case. Secondly, they have failed to explain the nuts and bolts of what it will require for Guyana to adopt a biometric system at polling stations.

To get there, at least two-thirds of all the elected members of the National Assembly will have to vote in favour of amending the Constitution.

Let’s assume GECOM got the required amendment to the Constitution and the requisite funding to go with it, what biometric machine specifications should it acquire? Ones that do facial and iris scans only? How about fingerprints and voice? With every added feature, the cost of the equipment will increase substantially.

With some 2,500 polling stations in Guyana, GECOM will have to purchase at least 5,000 pieces of biometric equipment, two for each station, in the event one scanner malfunctions.
A reliable biometric fingerprint attendance machine can cost up to US$100 on the low end. Add face, iris and voice to the equipment specifications and the cost skyrockets. Add internet connectivity and the cost increases even more.

Each polling station will require internet access to ensure real-time monitoring and cross-referencing against GECOM’s database. What if the citizen uses his or her passport? The biometric machines will need access to a different database in the event that a person attempts to use his or her passport to vote.

For example, Joe Smith shows up at a polling station to cast his vote on election day. He presents a valid ID or a passport, casts his vote and carries on with his day. Now let’s add biometrics to the equation. A machine will scan his fingerprints, face, iris, and conduct a voice verification.

An operator uploads the information in real time, it is cross-referenced against one or more databases and the machine gives a green light for the registrant to cast his vote.

What if the machine rejects Joe Smith’s vote for a myriad of reasons. I guarantee you that Lewis hasn’t factored this into his argument and yet a cursory glance at biometric voting systems in the DRC, Senegal, Angola, Mozambique and Rwanda for example, shows that they’re riddled with holes due to identification failures.

There is another omission in Lewis’ argument. The GECOM ID system and the new Guyanese passports currently collect a limited number of biometrics before issuing documents. Guyana passport offices, for example, capture an applicant’s fingerprints and facial data which are then embedded in the passport chip.

Whether departing or arriving home, one will notice an immigration official scanning a traveller’s passport and a camera grabs a facial scan. That’s all to verify that you are who your document says you are.

In his hot pursuit of Ret’d Judge Justice Claudette Singh, GECOM and the PPP/C, Lewis and the APNU+AFC machinery that gives him life have not done their home work.

I, therefore, have to agree with AG Anil Nandlall and VP Bharrat Jagdeo that the electoral system that is currently in place in Guyana has a sufficient number of built-in guardrails to stave off fraud. What is required is for the APNU+AFC to respect and abide by these guardrails.

According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 50 of 176 democracies rely on biometrics at polling stations to verify the identity of voters. Canada, Europe and Australia don’t use biometrics, and a cursory review of the scholarly articles on the subject shows that biometric systems at polling stations don’t necessarily guarantee the outcomes rival political parties desire.

While they might curb fraud and eliminate multiple registrations, election-management bodies such as GECOM in our case, don’t often have the expertise or resources to design and implement their own biometric systems.

This usually requires them to outsource the installation and management of their systems to private actors, which then complicates, if not compromises, the information ecosystem which stores vitally confidential information of their citizens.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.