The issue should be put to the test

Feb 15, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

This column seeks to present a wide variety of views of matters of public interest. It is intended to promote diversity of views free from the taint or prejudices induced by presenting a face behind the views.
From a moral standpoint therefore, it is understandable that this column would be on shaky grounds if it attempts to invoke critical comments against the personalities of others. In pursuance of both this moral obligation as well as encouraging divergent opinions, inclusive of criticisms of this column, so as to add to the public discourse, this column had often been restrained in responding to its critics.
However, when it comes to misrepresentation of incomprehension of any of the columns in this space, there is an obligation to correct this defect. One such case occurred in a letter which was published in another section of the media by Senior Counsel. Mr. Ralph Ramkarran. In that letter, Mr. Ramkarran described as flawed by analysis of the constitutionality of the right of every adult Guyanese to vote.
He accused Peeping Tom of suggesting that since our registration laws provide for only residents to register, then only residents can vote. This is quite a fallacious, and I dare say ingenious interpretation of what my column stated.
This column has never argued that only residents can register. This may have been the de facto consequence of the new house to house registration campaign but our registration law does not have a residency requirement. In fact, during the last elections, one of the principal concerns of the opposition was that the voters’ list was over bloated with persons who were no longer living in Guyana. When that issue arose, this column opposed the removal from the list, persons who were no longer resident in Guyana having been registered previously.
The point at which this column departs from Mr. Ramkarran’s views is not in reference to our registration laws but in his interpretation of Article 59 of the Constitution of Guyana. That article says that subject to Article 159 of the said Constitution, any Guyanese 18 years or older may vote in an election. However, this article is subject to Article 159 which explicitly states that no person may vote unless he or she is an elector. What we therefore have is not just a right of every adult to vote but only a right of those adults who are electors, meaning that they must have first been registered. Thus, registration is a requirement of the right to vote. This is why that particular column was titled “The right to vote is determined by the duty to be registered.”
Just to extend the argument a little, let us suppose that someone resident in Guyana does not register to vote. Can that person then challenge the outcome of an election on the basis that his constitutional right as an adult citizen was violated?  Which Court in light to Article 159 is going to rule that a person who has not taken the time to be registered can find a constitutional defense in Article 59 or in Article 159?
And it would be oppressive for the Guyana Elections Commission to have a constitutional obligation to register every adult Guyanese wherever he or she may be.  Peeping Tom is proceeding to Iceland in the next couple of weeks. Peeping Tom’s name was not registered in recent house to house registration, nor has Peeping Tom made a claim during the recent period set aside for making such claims. As such, Peeping Tom’s name is not in the Register of Registrants. So does the Elections Commission have an obligation to make provision, before next year’s General Elections, to have registration of Guyanese in Iceland? No, this would be an oppressive requirement.
In the Esther Perreira case, the Court was said to have found that no law could impede the right of an elector to vote. The operative word is an “elector” which means someone who is registered to vote and not just every single adult citizen of Guyana.
The issue can be put to rest. And we do not have to wait until the next elections are held. All that is now required is for some overseas citizen, through his local counsel, to immediately file a constitutional action against the government for denying him his right to vote on the grounds that there is no provision for general overseas voting.
If overseas- based Guyanese feel so strongly that they have a right to vote and that the Guyana Elections Commission is obligated to facilitate such a right under the Constitution, they should file the necessary action in our Courts. This should be done now rather than waiting until the last of hours and thus running the risk of invoking a constitutional crisis which would involve having to extend the life of the present government.

---

---