Dear Editor,
THE year 2024 was dominated by news on Exxon’s lopsided contract, the Natural Resources Fund, allegations of corruption and racism and a debate on the prospects of introducing biometrics at polling sites.
My position on biometrics has been partly expressed in my SN letter of November 30, 2024. Suffice to say that the debate to incorporate biometrics into the voting process continues to make its mark in this election year, 2025.
I will confine my analysis to the politics of biometrics. The opposition views (as expressed by Mr Sherwood Lowe, Mr Lincoln Lewis. Dr Henry Jeffrey, Mr Norman Browne, and Mr Lelon A Saul) on biometrics are incongruent with those of the governing PPP/C.
The PPP/C’s views approximate those reflected in the independent writings of Mr Hargesh Singh, Mr Harry Nawbatt, Mr Kit Nascimento and Mr Ralph Ramkarran.

Among the obstacles to biometrics at polling sites is the cost factor, especially in the context that no one knows if biometrics would produce better results than the existing folio system, since no feasibility or pilot project on its viability has been conducted.
It is estimated that if Guyana were to procure 1,500 Mobile Biometrics Registration Kits (MBRK) for the estimated 2,500 voting sites, that would cost approximately US$4.8 million.
There is also the further pitfall that any possibility of introducing MBRK into the voting system could not proceed unless there is a constitutional amendment in accordance with Article 164 of the Guyana constitution.
There have been mixed reactions to biometrics in the countries that embrace this technology. In Albania, for example, the failure of biometrics at their most recent polls caused a disruption of voting in several counties and they had to revert to the mechanical method.
If this happens in Guyana, there might be social upheaval; not to mention swift court challenges to the election results. Caution must therefore be exercised in the consideration of introducing biometrics into the voting system.
“There are numerous ways in which an election can be stolen and devoting massive resources to advanced registration-even if they are well implemented and work perfectly-may displace fraudulent activities to other areas of the process.” (ACE Project). This scenario happened at the 2020 National and Regional elections.

The rigging occurred not at the polling stations but at the tabulation centre. Election data returns were manipulated by top GECOM staff. At the declaration of the initial results, the PPP/C was deprived of 3,855 votes while the incumbent APNU+AFC was gifted 19,008 votes.
After the recount, the PPP/C’s valid figures (3,855) were restored and the APNU+AFC invalid votes (of 19,008) were deducted from their total votes. Could anyone explain how biometrics would have prevented that attempt at rigging?
For PPP/C-aligned advocates, they feel that should biometrics become an element or the central element in determining voter identification, thousands of voters, particularly overseas-based, would become casualties in the process, unless suitable measures are put in place to ensure that they are not disenfranchised, except in the case of death.

The PNCRites and others are concerned about allegations of impersonation, but there is no credible evidence to support that position.
The former Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield stated in the presence of the then Chair of GECOM Dr Steve Surujbally, that the existing folio system (in which there are the voter’s photograph, his biometrics fingerprint and other personal data) is robust. Mr Lowenfield indicated that impersonation at voting stations is not possible.

“I think we need to put to rest the concept that a man can leave polling station A in Cummingsburg and go across to Alberttown or Queenstown and hop around. It’s just not possible.” (Guyana Times: July 3, 2020). And his views are supported by his successor as well as all the international and local observer groups.
Guyana has experienced a series of rigged elections and people are therefore concerned with integrity in the process as well as the need to allay their fears. It is in the best interest of every Guyanese to have a voting system that is fair and sturdy, and which generates confidence in the people.
Not having biometrics as a component of voting does not compromise the existing folio system. I doubt whether Guyanese would support, at this time, an untested and very costly biometric system at voting sites.
The results of a Pilot Project (or feasibility study) should show the way forward. It is also noted that every process in the electoral system needs to be robust and transparent: at voting stations, at tabulation centre(s), at management and oversight levels.
Yours truly,
Dr Tara Singh