Dear Editor,
I am privy to an Opinion: House to House D Registration Unconstitutional, by Anil Nandlall, which was published by Demerara Waves on March 20th, 2019. This opinion has since morphed into the threat of litigation against GECOM and its CEO. It is most disingenuous for Mr. Nandlall to seek to label “Registration” “de registration” when the exercise that GECOM is preparing to undertake falls within its jurisdiction as specified in articles 161 A and 162 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic, and is no different from the exercise done in 2008, when the PPP was in government and provided the resources for it; and from what GECOM decided that it would do periodically, and specifically in 2019 based on its approved budget, which approval was supported by the PPP/C parliamentarians.
What is unfolding in relation to the PPP’s anti-registration stance, now, clearly exposes that the registration issue goes beyond delays in holding the elections and is in itself the object of PPP rejection, although they had previously supported it and even advocated for it.
I will now expose the flaws in Nandlall’s new position and then surmise as to why the PPP is taking this new position.
Nandlall claims that the Chairman of GECOM colludes with the PNC ‘so-called’ commissioners on every matter that they have proposed. Not true! The Chairman voted with the PPP commissioners to shoot down the appointment of an applicant for the position of Legal Officer, who was the only short-listed candidate; met all of the advertised requirements; and whose recruitment was proposed by the ‘so-called’ PNC commissioners.
Nandlall argues that the House to House exercise is predicated on the removal of overseas Guyanese. Whether there is that predication or not the fact is that House to House Registration does not provide for absentee Guyanese to be registered. This has been the practice ever since overseas voting was abolished, mainly at the PPP’s behest in 1992.
Nandlall refers to the system for the removal of deceased persons from the list as if registration since 1992 allows for overseas persons to be registered. While it might be true that a visiting Guyanese might be registered, House to House or Office based registration only caters for Guyanese who are physically present in Guyana, so the issue is not House to House, it is registration period, except that House to House by its very nature is more stringent and less susceptible to fraudulent registration. It not only verifies who the registrant is, it also seeks to establish the place of residence, the physical presence of a registrant and the place of abode.
Nandlall describes the process ‘House to House’ as anachronistic. In Guyana’s circumstance I await his proposal for a modern system. But given his argument against House to House period, such a proposal may never be forthcoming, since it would fly in the face of his intended retention of the bloated list.
Nandlall seeks to establish his case by reference to constitutionality, and in so doing references Articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution. In reference to article 59, he snidely, does not mention 59 (2) C which states that for persons to qualify to be registered, they must “satisfy such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under the law”. It is the said Constitution that has provided for and legitimizes residency as a basis for registration. House to House registration is therefore no deregistration of anyone. A new register is being prepared and anyone meeting the requirement of 159 is entitled to be registered. And may I add, is available to be registered, since overseas registration is a thing of the past, courtesy of the PPP/C. This provision is no different to other provisions by which the Constitution confers an entitlement but provides criteria and procedures for the realization of that entitlement. This is patently so with Citizenship where a born overseas Guyanese virtually has to be naturalized if he/she is not recorded/registered as a Guyanese at the time of issuance of his or her birth certificate.
It should be noted that under the National Registration Act, that any Guyanese once present in Guyana can be registered or have his or her name included on the list through the process of a Claim, hence registration does not deregister or disenfranchise anyone as Nandlall seeks to portray.
I can only surmise that this claim of deregistration is but a ruse and that there are ulterior motives in the PPP’s desire to derail registration.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
