The fundamental right to vote

Handing down her decision in August on the objected-to House-to-House registration exercise, Chief Justice Roxane George had cited the words of Justice Claudette Singh in her judgement on the “Esther Perreira case”, when the latter had vitiated the results of the 1997 elections. She did so on the ground that the agreement by the overwhelming majority of the National Assembly – comprising the PPP and the PNC – to require an ID card as a prerequisite for voting was unconstitutional.
Justice Singh had explained eloquently: “It is axiomatic that no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined… it becomes clear, then, that any prohibition, restriction or limitation on the right to vote must be viewed with a close and critical eye, since any such encroachment would be a bar to that voter’s right to have a voice in the elections of his representatives in government”.
This right arises from the most fundamental principle of the Constitution, in Art 9, which declares, “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution.”
This has been described as part of the “Basic Structure” of our Constitution, which cannot be altered even by a “legal” amendment to the Constitution. To fetter a right grounded in the sovereignty of the people is to plunge a dagger into the heart of our sacred right to be human.
Justice George buttressed Justice Singh’s articulation of the principle by pointing out in her August ruling:
“The right to be registered to vote and the right to vote are sacrosanct and fundamental. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Guyana has acceded and which is incorporated into our Constitution, (see art 154A (1) and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution) establishes the right to vote as a matter of international human rights law and provides that every citizen has a right to vote”.
But for the same Justice Claudette Singh, in her new role as Chair of GECOM, to now order that some 28,000 persons who had legally been registered to vote but did not uplift their ID Cards since 2008 must be stricken from the Preliminary Voters List, is tantamount to refusing to hark to her own caution, that “any prohibition, restriction or limitation on the right to vote must be viewed with a close and critical eye, since any such encroachment would be a bar to that voter’s right to have a voice in the elections of his representatives in government”.
She has ordered that the individuals who have not uplifted their ID Cards be informed to do so through the mail, and if within 21 days they still have not complied, their names will be stricken from the PLE/OLE, but remain on the NRR. Let us therefore examine “with a close and critical eye” Chairman Singh’s decision. The rationale could be that these individuals are either dead, chose not to have an ID Card, or are not present at the address.
However, there is already a procedure for removing individuals who become deceased from the OLE and NRR: through the death certificates issued by the General Registrars’ Office, or from “objections” during the Claims and Objections period. The recent operation of these processes has not thrown up the identified names. Secondly, there is no legal requirement for a citizen to have an ID, since a passport can also be used for identification purposes. Thirdly, if individuals are to be removed because they are not at the address, then this is in violation of the CJ’s ruling that residency is not a requirement for voting.
At best, the GECOM Chair’s order can only be regarded as an effort to “clean up” the OLE. The fundamental right to vote cannot be sacrificed at the altar of bureaucratic efficiency.