A synopsis of the Chief Justice’s ruling on removing the name of a person who is currently on the list of registrants during house-to-house registration

Sep 01, 2019 News

---

Last month Attorney-at-law and Chartered Accountant Christopher Ram challenged the constitutionality of the recently concluded house-to-house registration exercise in which he argued that it will result in the possibility of thousands of Guyanese being unlawfully deregistered and will omit to register thousands of qualified registrants resulting in their loss in their right to vote at the next elections.

Chief Justice Roxane George dealt extensively with this issue in her written judgment. At paragraph 172 -174 of her judgment, Justice George gave a synopsis on the issue ‘Can a person whose name is currently on the list of registrants and electors, but who is not registered during the house-to-house registration exercise, be removed from the list of registrants and thereby the list of electors for the next general and regional elections which flow from the validly passed No-Confidence Motion.’

According to the Chief Justice, residency is not an additional qualifying requirement for registration pursuant to Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution of Guyana.

She added, “And therefore the names of persons which are currently on the list of registrants and electors, but who are not registered during the house-to-house registration exercise cannot be removed unless the persons are deceased or become disqualifies pursuant to Article 159 (2) of the Constitution with the provisions for such removal in the National Registration Act to be complied with.”

Justice George explained that where persons are already registered it would be unconstitutional if they are removed for the sole reason that they now reside in another jurisdiction or another part of the country vis-à-vis where they reside as regards their place or district of registration in Guyana where they would be able to vote. She said that the same would apply if it is that they are simply not present for whatever reason when the registration officer or enumerator visited or visits.

The Chief Justice noted, “Once they fulfill the criteria in Article 159 (2) and are already registered, they are entitled to remain so unless it is proven that they are dead or have become disqualified or that Article 159 (3) or (4) applies.” According to Article 159 paragraph (3), no person shall be qualified to be so registered who on the qualifying date is a person certified to be insane or otherwise adjudged to be of unsound mind under any law in force in Guyana.

Article 159 paragraph (4) further adds, No person shall be qualified to be so registered if during such period (not exceeding five years) preceding the qualifying date as may be prescribed by Parliament, has been convicted by a court of any offence connected with elections that is so prescribed or has been reported guilty of such an offence by the High Court on proceedings under article 163.

In determining that residency is not a requirement necessary for qualification for registration and by extension as an elector, Justice George said that she agreed with Nandlall’s contention that the residency requirement was removed when the 1980 Constitution came into force. She noted that the extant 1980 Constitution sets out the requirements for eligibility to be registered as an elector for the purposes of voting in an election.

She reasoned at paragraph 154, “Having concluded that residency is Guyana is not a qualifying requirement, it would follow that Guyanese who are living overseas do not cease to be qualified to be registered by the sole reason that they are not residing in Guyana at the time of the house to house registration once they have been registered before.”

“For that matter, if for example, a person who has been registered in a district in Region 4, has , since the last registration cycle or the last 2015 general or 2018 local government election when he or she voted, become resident whether permanently or temporarily in Region 8, that person cannot be removed from the register of registrants and ultimately the list if electors because they did not return to the relevant district in Region 4 to be registered during the house-to-house registration process, more so if they consider their residence to be in Region 4.”

Furthermore, she held that if these persons have changed their addresses and thereby changed the division where they reside, then one would expect that they would apply to do so during the house-to-house exercise or at a divisional of district office. If they care to be re-registered in the Region in which they now reside, where they are there permanently or not, they would have to re-register and the requisite provisions would apply for the removal of their names from the list for the district in which they were previously resided pursuant to subsection 8 and 11 of the NRA (National Registration Act).”

According to Article 159 (2), subject to the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) (both mentioned above) a person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector for elections, if and shall not be so qualified unless, on the qualifying date, he is of the age of 18 or upwards and either: (a) a citizen of Guyana; or (b) is a Commonwealth citizen who is not a citizen of Guyana and who is domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year immediately preceding the qualifying date; and (c) satisfies such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law.

“By stipulating that a person who has already been registered must be at their residence at the time of the house to house registration exercise is order to be registered, suggests that another qualifying criterion is being added for registration as an electors. A reading of all the relevant provisions leads to the inevitable and ineluctable conclusion that GECOM does not have the discretion without more to remove the name of a person from the list of registrants or electors because such a person who was previously registered has not been re-registered during a house to house registration exercise,” Justice George noted at paragraph 141 of her judgment.

At paragraph 142, Justice George adds, “Section 3 of the Elections Law Act (ELA) regulates the process for registration of electors. Indeed, it merely sets out the procedure to be followed by registration officers in the matter of registration of electors in Guyana. That is, if you live in a particular division, you will be registered in that division, but it does not seek to exclude Guyanese citizens who are residing overseas or for that matter, registrants who for whatever reason are not able to return to their district of registration from wherever they maybe within Guyana, they having been previously registered.”

She continued, “Hence, if a person does not register in the division to which s/he may have moved after the last registration exercise, whether by house-to-house registration or at a district office, s/he would have to return to the district or division of their original address in order to vote.”

---

---