“Nothing deficient about amendment; it will not disenfranchise anybody” – AG; ruling on ‘residency of voters’ case for April 3

Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, S.C., on Friday vehemently defended amendments made to the National Registration Act (NRA), which removed the requirement of residency for citizens to vote, reiterating that it merely brings the law into conformity with the constitution.

Nandlall’s arguments came on Friday as the case, which was filed by Chief Scrutineer of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Carol Joseph in December 2024, to repeal the amendments made in 2022 to the National Registration Act, was heard.

Acting Chief Justice, Roxane George, was initially scheduled to deliver her ruling on Friday but set aside her decision and invited the parties to make additional submissions.

One of the issues raised was regarding provisions of Article 73 (1) of the Constitution, which states: “Members of a regional democratic council (RDC) shall be elected by persons residing in the region and registered as electors for the purpose of Article 159.”

While the AG contended that the Article 73 provisions are irrelevant to this current case before the court, Counsel for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Attorney Kurt Da Silva, argued that the amendments made by parliament, which removed the residency requirement, creates issues for other groups of voters outside of the general elections.

For instance, he noted that those registering to vote at local Government elections, as well as regional elections, under Article 73 (1), are required to be residing in the region in which they are voting, thus removing the residency requirement “creates problems”.

According to the lawyer, General and Regional Elections are traditionally held together using the same List of Electors since the addresses of those voters were being verified under the NRA. But he noted that while the 2022 amendments to the NRA removed that verification of residence during the registration process, this is still a constitutional requirement, under Article 73 (1), for Regional and Local Government Elections, which he contended that parliament did not take into consideration.

“Anyone voting for a Regional Democratic Council… in addition to being registered, must be residing in the region,” he maintained.

However, AG Nandlall said the GECOM lawyer is making “uninitiated” submissions.

The AG countered in court that the 2022 amendment simply removed the residency requirement to bring the law in conformity with the Constitution, which was changed since 1980 to remove the residency requirement. It was not until 2022 that the law was updated to reflect that change.

Prior to these changes in 2022, GECOM removed names from the National Register of Registrants (NRR) or halted the registration process if the address verification failed.

But the AG noted that when Article 159, which he described as an “entrenched provision”, was created in the 1980 constitution, it removed that residency requirement in the qualifications to register, thus according the “highest quality of protection” to the right to register to vote and the right to vote.

Article 159 outlines the qualifications for persons to register to vote in Guyana, that is, if they are 18 years or older, and either a Guyanese citizen or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana, and satisfy such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law.

“All [Article] 73 says is that you must vote in the region you are residing in, but 73 also says you must be qualified to vote under 159… [Under Article 159] when the constitution speaks about any other law, the constitution cannot be speaking about the constitution [as in Article 73]. The constitution will say, as provided for in this constitution, when it wants to refer to itself… When it says ‘prescribes by any other law’, it means any law; a law other than the constitution,” Nandlall told reporters after the hearing.

He argued in court that, “whatever requirements Article 73 has in it, it must bend and bow and be subservient to Article 159.”

According to the AG, the Local Government Elections are executed under a different legal framework and system of voting, which cannot be applicable to the case before the court.

“We removed provisions for GECOM to go to an address to verify whether a person is residing there. If residency is not a qualification, why is there any obligation on GECOM to go verify residency at the address, and why is there a burden on anyone to prove they reside at a particular address when the supreme law that qualifies you to vote doesn’t require that?” Nandlall stated to reporters.

He posited that the onus is on the voter to ensure that they are registered within the region that they want to vote in during the Local Government Elections. He added that even if a person is registered to vote in one region but resides in another, they would only be allowed to vote once.

In her case, Carol Joseph wants proof of residency to be required when registering to vote, citing concerns that the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of general and regional elections could be compromised with the verification of residency. She is represented by Attorney Dexter Todd.

But AG Nandlall told reporters, “There is nothing deficient about the change that has been made in the law, it will not disenfranchise anybody… Once you provide an address, it matters not – it could be the High Court building. If that is your address, that is your address. All you need an address for is to determine where you vote…”

“This is a red herring that is thrown in this whole election equation to delay and to cause mischief and misapprehension among the voting public. This is a political ploy,” the AG asserted.

After hearing the submissions in court on Friday afternoon, Chief Justice George indicated that she will deliver her ruling on April 3.