PNCR’s residency requirement case thrown out 

An application to the High Court that sought a declaration that mandates verifying that an address exists and that an individual lives at or is connected to that address to be eligible to vote in Guyana was dismissed on Thursday.

Acting Chief Justice Roxane George ruled that there is no residency requirement for Guyanese citizens to be registered and ultimately to vote in the general elections.

The case centered on the National Registration (Amendment) Act of 2022 and was filed by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Chief Election Scrutineer, Carol Smith-Joseph. The case challenged GECOM’s House-to-House registration process. The ruling on Thursday applied to both the regional and general elections.

Joseph, who was represented by attorney Dexter Todd, sought a declaration that mandates not only verifying that an address exists but also that the applicant lives at or is connected to that address.

The court heard that Joseph was concerned that some addresses are abandoned buildings, places where no one has lived for years, some addresses exist but no one knows the person who claim to be living there, and some addresses are generic like a name of a village or area.

The applicant believed that these occurrences contaminated the National Register of Registrants list. But the Chief Justice stated that no evidence was provided by the applicant to back her claims.

“The applicant has produced no evidence to support the contentions that there are persons who have been found not to be located at the address stated on their registration information, that is that they do not reside at their addresses claimed,” the Chief Justice stated.

The applicant also failed to specify how the verification of addresses process should be conducted.

“What are the factors and or parameters that are to be considered in deciding that an address claim is not acceptable? How is a connection to an address to be determined, who determines the factors to be so applied, who determines that the address claim is dilapidated or abandoned, or that a neighbour’s indication that a person does not live at the address is accurate?

“Who determines that an address that simply names a village is unacceptable? In short, who determines that the person seeking to be registered for the first time or to be transferred to another area should not be entered on the register?” the Chief Justice questioned.

Further, in her ruling, Chief Justice George emphasised that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) cannot refuse registration based on address verification concerns.

Specifically for regional elections, the residence for voting purposes will be determined solely by the address given at registration, the Chief Justice ruled.

In addition to that, even if an address is later deemed abandoned or if there is a perception of no connection between the registrant and the address, the individual’s registration remains intact.

Moreover, a registrant’s name cannot be removed from the voter list unless the individual requests a change of address, is deceased, or has been disqualified.

“In my view the address claim has to be accepted, the registration officer cannot say to a person presenting themselves to be registered that they do not accept the address they have given for whatever reason,” the Chief Justice said.

The PNCR, in a statement, said the decision will be appealed.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall who earlier dismissed the merits of the case, reacted to the ruling on his Facebook page.

“In yet another elaborate and well-reasoned Judgment, the CJ dismissed PNC’s case, upholding all of our submissions; and confirms once again that there is no legal requirement for a Guyanese to be a resident at a particular address in Guyana in order to be registered or to vote.

“The Court labeled the case as an attempt to disenfranchise Guyanese and violate the doctrine of separation of powers,” he wrote.