Biometrics is modern way for GECOM to do business

Feb 14, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The issue is whether biometrics give improvements and is a legitimate ask, not whether a huge chunk of our electorate is asking. The implementation of biometrics in elections has made significant progress around the globe.

As of now, we have completed the deployment of biometric systems in 29% of the 193 UN member countries. Question: Why? Answer: Due to efficiency! Indian voters have EVMs – Electronic Voting Machines since 1991, Nigeria used them in 2011, Tanzania in February 2015, and Brazil in 2018. Their post-election reports indicate easiness in voting. Latin America and Africa use it.

The focus is on enhancing voter identification and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. Key achievements: (a) Use of technology that used fingerprint scanners and facial recognition software, (b) Comprehensive training programs have been conducted for election officials and staff with an emphasis on the importance of biometrics in improving election transparency, and efficiency and reducing instances of voter fraud. When there was some resistance to change due to privacy and data security concerns the powers that be finalized data security protocols to protect voters’ information. In the Guyana context, continued collaboration among stakeholders will be critical to the successful implementation of biometrics in the upcoming elections. Several leaders agree with me.

A former PPP/C Minister of over 20 years ago (a “has been”): “Ghana displays an identification method that relies on biometrics …. it was successful in alleviating long line-ups:” The Kaieteur News January 20, 2025, ‘Good Governance: the most important issue today;’ A party’s presidential candidate has vowed that his party will be getting assistance from international bodies that are fielding observers in Guyana. This person could be the president of a country (a “now-fu-now”). This “now-fu-now” and “wanna-be” president says GECOM has no inkling of the way forward, is disconnected from reality, is delusional in its decision-making job, makes incorrect preemptive assumptions at every job it puts its mind to accomplish, offers unacceptable and insipid excuses at every turn, ignores all previous recommendations by Observers, has a mindset of using cosmetic approaches, does not mind being picketed, and shuns improvements.

Another former PPP/C Minister, as well as a former GDF personnel on February 13, 2025, wrote letters appearing in The Kaieteur News on pages 5 and 6 captioned respectively: ‘Biometrics and election 2025’ and ‘In Reply to Mr. Eddy Layne.’ One recommends it, the other does not. Editor, biometrics is an interesting issue. What have the OAS and other Election Observers recommended? In 2015, Professor Gordon Shirley, the head of the OAS Observer Mission, lamented GECOM’s shortcomings and implored improvements. His story started when he met with stakeholders and issued a press release: ‘High hopes for the election process.’

After the election, however, that hope fizzled to a spent statement blasting inefficiency at GECOM, M. SHABEER ZAFAR LAW OFFICES particularly in counting and declaring a winner, and that the seat allocation methodology showed ineptitude and incompetence. I urge the reader to look at his Report. In 2015, the Carter Center fielded many Observers countrywide. They reported seeing an exclusion of members of civil society serving as election observers from voting, all were disenfranchised. The Electoral Assistance Bureau in the said 2015 Elections Reports chided the manner GECOM does things.

The US Ambassador had meanwhile fully endorsed EAB and OAS so by extension the Embassy would also argue the fact that members of civil society serving as election observers were disenfranchised in 2015. Editor, ten years before that 2015-time frame, in our sordid electioneering past, that is to say, in 2006, it took 6 days to decide which presidential candidate had won. Also, GECOM could not aptly say who had won seats in Region 10: The Electoral Assistance Bureau, March 7, 2007, Report of the 2006 Elections, p. 34, Heading Analysis of Results, “discrepancies existed in the Region 10 results and that they had substantiated AFC’s claims …Geographic Constituency seats.”

It means we need to go back to the drawing board. Come November 2025, if we were to use biometrics, there would be in place a system that identifies voters, dispelling “laaang laaang lineups” faced by tens of thousands of voters, including myself. Biometrics heralds modernity and crushes those “laaang laaang line-ups.” Time is money! The EAB, OAS, and the Carter Center reported that lengthy line-ups in the blazing sun are challenging. They say the “laaang laaang” line-ups are evidence of inefficiency. Why not enhance the quick flow of voters on e-day this writer asks? Your customers are pensioners, most are sickly. What is the commonsensical approach GECOM ought to take? Treat your customers as kings! We all know one seat makes a big difference as to which Party runs Guyana. On a personal front, the Province of Ontario, where I work as a lawyer, has a Snap election on February 27.

On Friday, February 28, 2025, everyone will know whether the incumbent or the challenger won. ELECTIONS ONTARIO hired me shortly after the writ was dropped 13 days ago, we are mandated to administer polls on February 27. We make voting an easy exercise. Our system does not require a voter to display courage, to place oneself in a long line for hours amid the coldest and harshest month of the winter, for half a day, just to place an X on a ballot. That would be cruel!

M. Shabeer Zafar, Barrister Solicitor Notary

(Biometrics is modern way for GECOM to do business)

---

• electoral process, improvements, post-election reports, UN member countries

---