Several questions raised in court case filed by opposition member over voter verification process
Mar 18, 2025
Kaieteur News- A series of questions have been raised in the case filed by People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member Carol Smith-Joseph challenging the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to engage in a better verification process of voters.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC
Smith-Joseph had filed a case seeking judicial review of the process, citing the need for verification of the addresses of registrants. In her application, the PNCR member claimed that checks have shown that addresses have on them no buildings, 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.
Attorney for Smith-Joseph, Dr. Dexter Todd faced a series of questions as it relates to the legal and factual basis of the issues raised in the matter. In his submission before the Acting Chief Justice (CJ) Roxane George, Dr. Todd asked the Court to take into consideration that whether previous amendment to the law totally removed the need for residency verification for registrants. He contended that under the laws that govern the general election, there should still be a residency requirement in as much as the registrant address is concerned. However, Chief Justice George highlighted scenarios where persons have no way of verifying that their specific lot number of address and questioned Todd whether such persons should not be registered.
“What if someone says they are from a village like Moraikobai, those areas don’t usually have streets or lot numbers what then happens with those persons. Are they disenfranchised from being registered or from voting?” queried the CJ.
In a similar scenario, the CJ questioned if a person is in the process of moving from their place of residence and does not necessarily have a permanent place as yet what would be done to those persons. “If they live there who is the registration officer to say yay or nay? Who determines the verification and how is the verification being done?”
Dr. Dexter Todd
In response, Dr. Todd suggested the issue can be resolved through methods such as proof of address, an affidavit or by third party verification. The lawyer suggested too that if the addresses cannot be confirmed then such persons can be placed on an unverified list of electors.
“That is not what the law says…Where in the law it provides for this unverified list of electors?” Chief Justice George questioned. She noted the constitution is clear on the issue. The judge pointed out too that there is no conflict with the law and the constitution as residency is not a qualification for Guyanese electors/voters.
Additionally, the CJ noted that no specific evidence was produced to support the argument of the applicant.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC who is representing the State’s interest in the case contended that matter from its inception has been wholly misconceived.
From the very inception, the case is an abysmal failure… The Applicant seeks to invoke this judicial review power to interpret legislation; a power that the Court does not have under the Judicial Review Act. In this regard, the Fixed Date Application is wholly misconceived and constitutes an abuse of process.
He stressed that no doubt, the Court has a jurisdiction to review legislation for want of constitutionality. However, Nandlall noted that there is no contention in the FDA that the legislation in question was enacted in violation of the Constitution, or that it is inconsistent or conflicts with the Constitution.
“This jurisdiction of the Court is well-known, and having regard to the doctrine of separation of powers. The limitations which are attendant upon that doctrine are also settled and axiomatic.”
Further, Nandlall contended that the applicant requests Court to read into the section, which only requires the address be verified, that a registrant lives at or is connected to that address.
“In other words, the Applicant is inviting the Court to violate the literal and grammatical meaning of words in the section, under the guise of interpretation, in order to expand their meaning to say what the clear language does not say. In effect, the Applicant is inviting the Court to amend the legislation… In effect, the Applicant is requesting the Court to reject the will of Parliament and to repeal legislation that Parliament has enacted,” the AG pointed out.
To sum up, he deduced that the applicant is inviting the Court to commit numerous “constitutional heresies.”
(Several questions raised in court case filed by opposition member over voter verification process)
Related
Similar Articles
