Are permanent residents of foreign states disqualified from contesting elections in Guyana?

Jul 15, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana establishes the legal framework for the eligibility of candidates to contest elections and serve as members of the National Assembly. Article 155 of the Constitution explicitly disqualifies persons who voluntarily agree to allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power from being elected to the National Assembly.  But does this prohibition applies only to membership in the National Assembly or extends to being listed as a candidate in General and Regional elections. Another question to be answered is whether allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state, under Article 155, relates to citizenship and permanent residence.

Article 155(1)(a) of the Constitution states:

“No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who – (a) is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.”

This provision is part of a broader set of disqualifications aimed at ensuring the integrity and loyalty of elected representatives. The Constitution does not explicitly address whether this prohibition applies to candidates on electoral lists or only to those elected to the Assembly.

The language of Article 155 focuses on eligibility for election to the Assembly, not candidacy. But since those elected to the Assembly are, in the main, drawn from the List of Candidates, it can be safely assumed that if you hold allegiance or obedience to a foreign power or state, you cannot be on the List or be extracted from that List for membership of the National Assembly.   It would be logically inconsistent to allow such persons to contest elections, as their election would be invalid.

It is therefore my considered view that if someone is disqualified from being a member of the National Assembly, they should ipso facto not be on the List of Candidate contesting the elections. But what is meant by “allegiance”, “obedience” and “adherence “to a foreign power or state. The term “allegiance” is not defined in the Constitution. Its interpretation must consider ordinary meaning, constitutional context, and judicial precedent. Allegiance to a foreign state of power has traditionally been interpreted by Commonwealth Courts as being tied to citizenship. This is why the possession of overseas citizenship has been construed as implying allegiance to a foreign power.

In the case of Guyana, the CCJ was crystal clear on the constitutionality of dual citizenship. It said in a decision: “It is uncontroversial …that a person holding Guyanese nationality is not qualified to be elected a member of the National Assembly if that person is also, voluntarily, a citizen of another State. Accordingly, Guyanese nationals with dual citizenship are not qualified to sit as members of the National Assembly.”

However, Article 155 of Guyana Constitution however does not limit itself to “allegiance” to a foreign power or state. It also speaks to “obedience” and “adherence” to a foreign power or state. While the courts have tended to lump all three together, I believe that a distinction has to be made between ‘allegiance’, ‘obedience’ and ‘adherence’.

Under constitutional law, particularly in the context of disqualification clauses such as Section 155(1)(a) of the Constitution of Guyana, a distinction can be drawn between “allegiance,” “adherence,” and “obedience” to a foreign power or state. ‘Allegiance’ connotes a deeper, more enduring bond of loyalty—often emotional or symbolic—typically associated with citizenship or nationality. It implies a primary and voluntary commitment to the sovereign or state. ‘Adherence’ suggests a supportive association or attachment to a foreign power, which may not rise to the level of full allegiance but reflects a willingness to align with its interests, ideals, or authority. ‘Obedience’, meanwhile, refers to the act of complying with the laws or directives of a foreign state, even in the absence of loyalty or ideological commitment. Thus, while ‘allegiance’ is the most comprehensive of the three, ‘adherence’ and ‘obedience’ may still invoke constitutional concerns when voluntarily assumed, as they can signal recognition of foreign authority that is inconsistent with the undivided loyalty expected of a member of the National Assembly.

It therefore may be tempting to interpret Guyana’s Constitution as outlawing permanent residents from being members of the National Assembly in the same way as it does a dual citizen. A Guyanese upon becoming a citizen of the United States for example is required to swear to an oath of allegiance. However, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) is not required to renounce their prior nationality or swear an oath of allegiance to the United States. While U.S. permanent residency does not require allegiance, it may be tempting to interpret it as a form of legal adherence or obedience, since the individual agrees to live under U.S. law and submit to U.S. legal jurisdiction. Thus, it may be appealing to argue that a person who voluntarily accepts and maintains U.S. permanent resident status may fall within the scope of disqualification under Section 155(1)(a).

However, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) agrees to follow the laws of the United States as a condition of residence, just as any visitor or foreign worker must. This is not unique or extraordinary and does not equate to political allegiance or loyalty. No oath of allegiance is required.

The disqualification under constitutional provisions often hinges on voluntary assumption of loyalty to a foreign sovereign or state. Since permanent residents do not swear an oath of allegiance, they retain their original nationality and are not seen as pledging political loyalty to another power. Just as a Guyanese national living in the U.S. must obey U.S. laws without becoming a U.S. citizen, the obedience required of permanent residents is viewed by some as a matter of residency compliance, not a transfer of political allegiance.

Being a permanent resident of a foreign country, without more, does not amount to an acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to that foreign power. It is simply a legal status governed by immigration law, and the obligations attached to it are administrative, not constitutional or political in nature. This more lenient interpretation is often favoured by courts seeking to avoid disenfranchising diaspora citizens or those with legitimate ties to more than one jurisdiction.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) 

---

• Elections, lawful permanent resident, Peeping Tom, voting

---