The fallacies surrounding Article 159(2)(c) explain much of the electoral mess in which Guyana finds itself

Apr 07, 2025 Letters

Dear Editor

Justice Roxane George, in her latest High Court ruling, is reported as lamenting that the country’s election laws are all over the place. Indeed, they are. I however submit that much order could have been achieved had Article 159(2)(c) in the Guyana constitution not been (whether intentionally or unintentionally) ignored, mischaracterized, misapplied and miniaturized. What does the Article say? It provides the third basis for the qualifications and disqualifications of electors and stipulates that a person shall not vote unless he or she “satisfies such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law.” It was enacted in 2001 (as constitution (amendment) act No 3 of 2001) and assented to by a PPP president.

Some legislative history may be helpful. The article was introduced in the aftermath of Justice Claudette Singh’s ruling that the use of voter ID cards in the 1997 General and Regional Elections (GRE) was an unconstitutional requirement for voting. Parliament reacted and inserted Article 159(2)(c), thereby achieving two goals: it nullified Justice Singh’s ruling, paving the way for the said voter ID cards to be used in the following 2001 GRE, and it granted constitutional permission for other qualifications for voting to be set or allowed in subsequent elections.

The chaos of which Justice George spoke need not have arisen had our Courts given due attention to determining whether “any law” existed that introduced additional qualifications on voters, bearing in mind that “any law” includes constitutional provisions, subsidiary legislation, and even the gazetted orders and notices of GECOM (as these too have the force of law).

It requires little effort to determine that such laws do exist (and did exist prior to the 2019 ruling on residency) and they all mandate the requirement for residency. These laws run through all levels of our legal framework, from the highest to the lowest. Article 73(1) of the constitution, for instance, mandates a residency requirement in stating that “Members of a regional democratic council shall be elected by persons residing in the region and registered as electors for the purpose of Article 159.”

Vincent Alexander, in his recent letter, most convincingly demonstrated that a more comprehensive look at the constitution (including, but beyond Article 73) establishes the absolute necessity for verified residency. And merely claiming any address (including that of the High Court, according to our AG) is not evidence of such residency.

But residency was also included in the subsidiary legislation at the time when the Courts denied its existence. The former Attorney General Basil Williams in his Notice of Appeal in the 2019 Christopher Ram case correctly noted, for example: “The learned Trial Judge erred and was misconceived in law in finding that there is no law or laws in Guyana which set out additional requirements more particularly residence for purposes of Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution by failing to properly address her mind to Sections 6 of the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 Laws of Guyana.”

And then, of course, at the time when GECOM started H2H registration in 2019, it gazetted notices and orders, which are considered laws in their own rights. So, there was or is no absence of “any law” in the meaning of Article 159(2)(c).

Yet, here we find ourselves. We have a constitutional amendment in Article 159(2)(c) that allowed the use of voter ID cards in the 2001 election and residency as a qualifying condition in the following three elections up to 2015. It has since abruptly been thrown into the garbage bin. It is not even worthy of mention by our current AG and others who, in reading Article 159(2), seemingly forget their alphabet after the letter (b.) Justice George, of course, has a far better understanding than I of the state of our electoral laws. But I hold the view that Article 159(2)(c), properly and respectfully applied, can remove much of the chaos which she decries. Expressed conversely, its misapplication has generated most of the disorder.

The onus then is not only on the Parliament to restore order, but for the country’s upper courts to get it right.

Regards

Sherwood Lowe

Latest News

The fallacies surrounding Article 159(2)(c) explain much of the electoral mess in which Guyana finds itself

Related

Similar Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

President’s College upstage Santa Rosa to advance into Quarters

CWI withdraws penalty on John Campbell following...

‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest Basketball opens...

GCA, East Coast surge to huge wins

GFF/Concacaf kick off two-day Match Commissioners...

Chase’s Academic outclass Bartica to move...

Features/Columnists

Anticipation without preparation

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Access to information should not come to this

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The fallacies surrounding Article 159(2)(c) explain much of the electoral mess in which Guyana finds itself

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]