Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George on Monday heard hours of arguments from Attorney General Anil Nandlall, Attorney Kurt Da Silva, and Attorney Dexter Todd in a High Court application asking for a review of Guyana’s law which deals with the residency of voters.
Todd is representing the applicant, Chief Scrutineer of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Carol Joseph who filed the case in December 2024. An order mandating the verification of registrants’ addresses for regional and general elections is also sought.
The case focuses on Section 6 (4B) of the National Registration Act (Chap. 19:08), as amended by Act No. 26 of 2022.
Joseph through her attorney, argues that since Guyana’s Constitution requires only the provision of an address at registration (not proof of residency), a system to verify these addresses is necessary, raising concerns that the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of general and regional elections could be compromised.
Todd argued that a clear connection between a registrant and their provided address is essential. He proposed that registering officers should verify that an address actually belongs to the registrant. With this suggestion, if an address remains unverified, the voter would still be allowed to cast a ballot, but only in the general election, not in the regional contest since votes are counted twice generally and then for constituents.
When questioned by the Chief Justice about how the proof of residency will be done, Todd responded with a few suggestions such as an affidavit from the actual property owner and for registration officials to contact the property owner via letter to verify that the voter resides at the address provided. Todd also suggested the creation of an unverified voters list to ensure that only votes associated with a confirmed address are counted.
“The applicant’s contention is that when you register that information goes to the National Register of Registrants (NRR) and that information is extracted depending on general or regional elections.
“GECOM has a responsibility that, the information going into the NRR is accurate,” Todd told reporters at the High Court on Monday.
He further explained that “there has to be a relationship between the address and the registrant.”
The Chief Justice pressed Todd for clarity, asking, “Who is deciding what the facts are? How is this connection to be determined?”
She pointed out that many persons live in various locations without having a utility bill in their name to show proof of residency and further questioned what exactly defines a person’s address.
Todd maintained that proof of address should be required when registering to vote.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall dismissed the merits of the case as “weak” and said the case is “procedurally flawed”.
Nandlall argued that this amounts to a judicial review of the constitution, a power the court lacks under the Judicial Review Act. He explained that the 2022 amendments to the National Registration Act were intended to align the law with the Constitution by eliminating the need for a residency address. Prior to these changes, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) would remove names from the National Register of Registrants or halt the registration process if address verification failed.
Nandlall also noted that this is not the first attempt to exclude registrants on the basis of unverified residency; a similar case occurred in 2019 under GECOM’s then-chair Retired Justice James Patterson, which led to a High Court case filed by Christopher Ram. Throughout the proceedings, Nandlall maintained that only an address is required for voter registration, not proof of residency.
“The applicant is saying to you, your honour, that the law is not saying what it should say,” Nandlall said in court.
He argued that it is impossible to create a verifiable connection to an address and that Joseph’s application seeks to overturn the changes made by Parliament in 2022.
“That used to be the law; that is no longer the law,” Nandlall said.
He warned that any decision might risk exceeding the court’s jurisdiction, violating the separation of powers, and even breaching the constitution.
Meanwhile, attorney Kurt Da Silva added that it is impractical to separate the votes for regional and general elections.
The Chief Justice is expected to deliver her decision on March 28.
The post High Court hears arguments for case on residency of voters appeared first on News Room Guyana.
