Why I opposed biometrics

Jan 21, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

On May 30, 2024, following a commission decision, GECOM’s CEO submitted a written presentation entitled, ‘Feasibility Study for Introducing Digital Fingerprint Capture During Registration and Biometric Fingerprint Identification for Voting in Guyana.’

The study was circulated to Commissioners who were given at least two weeks to consider the document in preparation for an exchange of views on the matter. At a meeting held on or around October 5, 2024, the chair invited commissioners to commence discussion on the matter.

At that meeting, I made it clear from the outset that it was my considered opinion that a division on the subject existed not only in the Commission, but also in the public domain. I maintained that it would be logical to expect that the opposing views within the Commission be recognised as a microcosm of what obtains in the wider society. In the circumstances, it was up to the Commission to settle the matter.

Furthermore, I pointed out that already the major parliamentary political parties have taken a stand on the matter. One had even jumped the gun. The AFC, in a letter requesting a meeting with GECOM, dated November 11, 2024, wanted to know ‘GECOM’s reasons for rejecting the introduction of biometrics as a tool for improving the credibility of all electoral processes.’ The AFC’s letter came at a time when the Commission had just started discussing the matter much less concluding nor arriving at a decision on the matter.

The PNC’s ‘Nation Watch’ programmes broadcast every Sunday starring Commissioner Vincent Alexander was profuse in his views favouring biometrics. His party leader, A. Norton was not to be found wanting in support for the introduction of biometrics at his weekly press conferences.

The Vice President and PPP General Secretary Jagdeo at his weekly pressers voiced his opposition to the introduction of biometrics in the electoral process.

From the outset, I stated that I stand opposed to the introduction of biometrics and will, for the avoidance of doubt, base my argument against its introduction, relying on specific sections in the feasibility study with a few references to relevant occurrences outside GECOM within the wider Guyanese society and other countries.

In my contribution, I touched on the eight sections and sub-sections in the feasibility study highlighting, ‘The challenges of using biometric fingerprint identification for voter identification and privacy concerns; the political considerations; the disadvantages of fingerprint recognition and predictable difficulties; the trust and confidence factors for GECOM and the experiences of several countries who rejected the use of biometric fingerprint identification for voting at national election.’

As regards the legal considerations, I drew attention to and supported references in the feasibility study that ‘there is no existing legal provision for the introduction of biometric fingerprint identification at the place of poll.’

I insisted on the need to keep reminding stakeholders about reference in the document to the fact that ‘the Constitution of Guyana will have to be amended to authorize the use of biometric fingerprint identification at the place of poll.’ An important question the opposition inside and outside the Commission has been unable to answer is whether the introduction of biometrics would require the retirement of the extant National Register of Registrants database and would necessitate the conduct of a fresh, countrywide house-to-house registration exercise in time for election 2025.

Eventually, one opposition spokesperson outside the Commission ‘let the cat out of the bag’ stating that “it is better to have no election than a bad election” suggesting that “the 2025 election should be postponed!”

At a meeting of the Commission held on December 12, 2024, the Chairman presented the Commission with an oral summation on the exchange of views on the subject. She posed a number of searching questions that in her view, “need to be further interrogated with a view to finding answers before the commission could go any further on the matter. For example, consultations with stakeholders cannot be held since the commission has not settled the matter in its collective mind.”

Opposition commissioners were of the view that the questions and challenges raised by the chairman were never addressed.

After careful examination of the chairman’s written analysis and conclusion that was subsequently circulated to Commission members, I supported the chairman’s view that; ‘…we have not reached a stage in our deliberations where we can conclude that we could introduce digital fingerprint capture during registration and biometric fingerprint identification for voting’ and therefore, more work needs to be done on the matter by the commission.’

At a meeting of the Commission held on December 17, 2024, commissioners were invited to express their views on the Chair’s summation. Opposition members expressed their disappointment with the Chairman’s summation emphasizing concerns and pointing to a number of omissions on her part. The Chair assured she will look at the matter again having heard the comments. At a meeting of the Commission held on January 14, the Chair called on members for responses to the opposition members observations to her’s. There was unanimous support from Gunraj, Narayan and Rohee for the Chair’s position announced at the meeting of December 17, 2024

On January 16, the Chair delivered her final position in relation to the introduction of biometrics ruling: “Having carefully listened to all of the presentations made by the Commissioners, and having reviewed all submissions including my research, I have recognised that the Commissioners have made different arguments for and against the introduction of biometrics, both at the point of registration and at the place of poll.”

She continued; “With less than a year to go before these Elections, and given the number of tasks that would need to be done before such a system can be properly introduced, and all of the work already required to prepare for General and Regional Elections, I am convinced that this is not feasible within the time presently available.”

In the circumstances, it is my considered opinion that the Chair’s ruling is justiciable, practical and realistic.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

Commissioner

(Why I opposed biometrics)

---

• Digital Fingerprint, exchange of views, public domain, registration, the AFC

---