Chief Justice cites need for restructuring electoral laws

Apr 04, 2025 News

---

…as legal challenge to GECOM’s verification process thrown out

Kaieteur News- Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George cited on Thursday the need for the restructuring of the country’s electoral laws even as she dismissed the legal challenge brought by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Chief Election Scrutineer, Carol Smith-Joseph, over the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) verification process.

“Something else has to happen. That’s a parliamentary issue…I’ve said it in previous cases. The election laws are all over the place. It’s very hard to manage, to navigate them,” she said.

The Chief Justice said that Article 159(1) and Article 72(1) are to be read together.

“How it will be addressed is another issue. That’s not for the Court to decide,” the Chief Justice stated clearly.

She said, “Given the entire schema and context of the various provisions, it is unclear why the legislature included that a registration or authorised officer is to visit addresses along with party scrutineers… it seems that the verification of an address by visit collides with Article 159(1).”

“This is a matter for parliament to address,” Justice George opined as she urged the Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC to address the state of the country’s electoral laws.

“I’ve said it in previous cases. The election laws are all over the place. It’s very hard to manage, to navigate them,” she said.

Recently, GECOM’s Legal Officer, Kurt Da Silva’s told the court that he sees a need for there to be a separate list of electors for Regional and General Elections.

Da Silva posited that the change must be to the statutory provision to ensure that the provisions governing the conduct of the elections comply first with the Constitution.

As such, it would now be necessary for ballots for General and Regional Elections to be printed separately.

GECOM’s legal officer noted that it would also be necessary for separate Lists of Electors to be generated for the two elections, since some persons would qualify to be electors for General Elections but not be qualified to be electors for Regional Elections; for example, Guyanese citizens residing outside of Guyana.

According to him, this means that Claims and Objections (C&O) in relation to those lists would be based on different criteria, with residence being a factor for Regional Elections but not in relation to Guyanese citizens for General Elections.

Meanwhile, hours after the ruling, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo noted that the decision vindicates the Government’s position on the issue of residency.

“What they [the opposition] were trying to do was rob citizens of a right to vote over an issue of verification, which is not even a requirement,” Jagdeo said.

However, the PNCR in a statement following the ruling said that Smith-Joseph has already instructed her lawyers to appeal Justice George’s ruling.

“Guyana will never have fair and credible elections if persons can give GECOM any address that does not even belong to them, including, according to AG Nandlall, the address of Guyana’s High Court. The PNCR/APNU rejects this as ridiculous and a threat to democracy.  We will continue our quest for a clean voters list, fingerprint biometrics, and an election process that has the full trust of the Guyanese people,” the Party said.

Meanwhile, in her ruling handed down on Thursday morning, Justice George affirmed that there is no residency requirement for Guyanese citizens to be registered or vote in the General Elections.

The case challenging GECOM’s house-to-house registration process was filed by Carol Smith-Joseph, who sought judicial review of the process, citing the need for verification of the addresses of registrants.

In her application, the PNCR member claimed that checks at addresses provided proved empty lots, or dilapidated or abandoned houses in which no one lives or has lived for years; the addresses exist but no one at the address knows the Applicant/Registrant; the address is generic; for example, it may be just the name of the village or town area. She fears that the integrity of General and Regional Elections and Local Government Elections and their results will be questionable, inaccurate and not credible.

However, in her ruling, Justice George said that Smith-Joseph produced no evidence to support her contention of persons not being found at the addresses that they claimed at their registration.

“The evidence produced is based on the application view or perception of what is or might be occurring …” she said.

The Chief Justice (CJ) noted that neither the applicant nor her attorney, Dr. Dexter Todd, provided the Court with plausible and legal solutions to the perceived issue of verification.

As such, the judge noted that once someone provides an address claimed, and it is verified as existing, the person has to be registered.

She stressed that even if the person no longer lives there, his or her name cannot be removed unless he or she makes a request, is dead or is disqualified.

“In my view, the address claimed has to be accepted. The Registration Officer cannot say to a person presenting themselves for registration that they do not accept the address they are given for whatever reason, and therefore disqualify the person for a first registration or registration of a change of address. To do so would be to disenfranchise persons, which would be unconstitutional,” Justice George explained

( Chief Justice cites need for restructuring electoral laws)

---

• Chief Justice, Elections, GECOM verification, PNCR, residency requirement

---