GECOM’s Legal Advisor’s submission on splitting ballots for elections can’t be changed now; Chief Election Officer says submissions were unauthorised

Last Updated on Friday, 21 March 2025, 15:16 by Denis Chabrol

Despite strong objections by the Chief Election Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Vishnu Persaud to submissions by the commission’s lawyer, Kurt Da Silva that there could be separate ballots for regional and general elections to ensure residency of voters for regional elections, the election management body was now at the mercy of the court, a senior official said Friday.

“It is unfortunate that the pronouncements were made by the Legal Officer who purportedly was representing me. Unfortunately, the submissions of the Legal Officer do not represent my instructions given to him. The pronouncements were not only unauthorised by me but were also disconnected from the court matter at hand,” the Chief Election Officer said in a statement.

The High Court has set March 28 for the decision, meaning that although Mr Persaud has publicly repudiated Mr Da Silva’s submissions, no changes could be made in the case brought by People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member, Carol Smith-Joseph.

At the same time, experts are assuring that GECOM has nothing to worry about because the High Court’s decision is expected to be all-encompassing rather than merely confined to Article 73 of Guyana’s Constitution which requires that voters for Regional Council elections to reside in the administrative region where they would be voting.

Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, representing the State, said Article 73 of the Constitution was inferior to the governing provisions of Articles 59 and 159 on qualifications required of persons to be registered as electors to vote at an election. “The Constitution must be read as a whole with governing provisions prevailing over those that are subservient in order to attain the true meaning and purpose of the provisions,” he said.

The GECOM Lawyer said, in response to the PNCR Chief Scrutineer’s submissions, that before amendments to the National Registration Act in 2022, verification of residence was done for all persons seeking to be registered, so there was no issue with the ballots for both General and Regional Elections being on the same sheet of paper. However, now that this was changed in the NRA following this Court pointing out that residency is not a criterion for Guyanese citizens voting at General Elections, this does need to be addressed.

He recommended that it would now be necessary for ballots for General Elections and Regional Elections to be printed separately. He said it would also be necessary for separate Lists of Electors to be generated for the two elections, since some persons would qualify to be electors for General Elections but not be qualified to be electors for Regional Elections, for example, Guyanese citizens residing outside of Guyana. This means that Claims and Objections  in relation to those lists would be based on different criteria, with residence being a factor for Regional Elections but not concerning Guyanese citizens for General Elections.

In denouncing the Legal Officer’s submissions, the Chief Election Officer cautioned that those pronouncements now lead to potential confusion and misrepresentation regarding preparations for the upcoming elections. “It is my considered view that the Legal Officer’s pronouncements carry severe implications for preparations for the upcoming elections by creating uncertainty among stakeholders, including voters, political parties and international observers,” he added.

Mr Singh said the Legal Officer’s pronouncements were in total contrast with how voter lists and ballots have been prepared for decades up to the 2020 general and regional elections and nothing included in the pronouncements was ever discussed by the Commission as far as I know.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby categorically state that the Legal Officer’s pronouncements do not represent, in any way, shape or form, my instructions to him. Therefore, it is my hope that all concerned will view the Legal Officer’s pronouncements as an aberration,” he said.