
The Private Sector Commission, which has served as an observer for previous elections in Guyana, has come out in support of the decision by the Elections Commission Chairman, not to allow the use of electronic biometrics for registration and at the place of poll for the upcoming elections.
The GECOM Chair, retired Justice, Claudette Singh, has cited insufficient time and the need for legislative changes as the main reasons behind her decision.
In a statement, the PSC said it has taken note of the Chairman’s decision and fully endorses it. According to the Private Sector body, there is no constitutional nor legal requirement for the introduction of biometric fingerprinting identification at the place of poll.
The Private Sector Commission noted that biometric fingerprinting is presently only
legally required at the time of registration, adding that the process is conducted with representatives from each political party present to verify voter identity.
The PSC said the voting process in Guyana is highly secure and well protected at the place of poll, declaring that “it is impossible at each polling place for anyone to vote more than once, or for one individual to cast a vote on behalf of another as each polling station is staffed by officials from the various contesting political parties, as well as with both local and international observers, who are present to ensure the accuracy and transparency of the voting process”
According to the Private Sector Commission, the current use of biometrics at the point of registration is perfectly acceptable for verifying voter identity in the 2025 elections.
In handing down her decision last week, the GECOM Chairman said with less than a year to go before Elections, and given the number of tasks that would need to be done before such a an electronic biometrics system can be properly introduced, it would not be feasible within the time presently available.
She further explained that in relation to the registration process, there is nothing in the law or otherwise preventing the introduction of a system where such fingerprints are taken digitally, since it is the Commission that is empowered to determine such procedures.
However, Justice Singh noted that apart from the necessary elements of implementing such a system, such as the procurement of equipment, training of personnel and education of the public, there is still the need for the Commission to address other issues, such as ensuring that there is adequate legislation pertaining to the security of prints.
In relation to biometric identification at the place of poll, she said there is legal provision for fingerprints of voters to be compared with that on their identity paper which equates to the National Identification Card.
She stated that introducing a system of biometric Identification of voters digitally as a mandatory, or only means of identification would impose an additional requirement for voters and would therefore be unconstitutional.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login