Dear Editor,
I refer to S/N editorial ‘A One Woman Commission’ of 24:9/‘22 concerning ‘the elephant in the room’ as it relates to the number of registered electors on the Preliminary Voters’ List (PLE). The editorial stated that; ‘it is only few more years before the number of registered electors exceeds the entire population as such becoming an embarrassment and rendering the data base as serving no purpose.’ The editorial then proceeds to rhetorically ask; ‘will the PPP/C at this point keep defending its (the lists’) retention keeping in mind it has itself called for a clean list when it lost office in 2015.’
First of all, the contention that the PLE is ‘bloated’ is false and implies that persons who should not be on the list are on the list. But the point is that whoever is on the PLE/OLE, are constitutionally there and in accordance with the laws of Guyana. There is nothing illegal about the nature of the list as some are trying to make out. In respect to the call for a clean voters list, for the avoidance of doubt, in or out of government, the PPP/C has always advocated in favour of a clean, credible and reliable voters list. But there is something we must not lose sight of.
While the APNU+AFC is free to call for a clean voters’ list, for them to attach conditions to their demand such as improved and enhanced biometrics, a fresh house- to-house registration exercise and the removal of deceased persons from the list, nothing must be done to deprive any registered elector of their right to exercise the franchise. The legally driven process of a period of Claims and Objections provides for representation to be made for the removal of deceased persons from the Preliminary Voters’ List (PLE) and this is done through the collaborative efforts between GECOM and the General Register Office (GRO) where deaths are officially recorded.
So long as there is nothing of evidential value to remove any name or names from the list, the name or names will remain in the list. If this is where the concern is with respect to the so-called ‘bloated list’ then there is pretty little that can be done about that. Any attempt otherwise to delete a registered elector’s name from the PLE/OLE would be illegal and tantamount to disenfranchising such a person. So long as a person’s name appears on the OLE, and they present themselves physically at an assigned Polling Station, they must be allowed to vote at an election, be it Local Government and/or General and Regional Elections.
The large number of voters to population on a PLE/OLE is a common feature of continuous registration conducted legally. Moreover, in countries where continuous registration takes place the occurrence is the same. If this is what is meant by a bloated list then it cannot be true because all the names on that list are there as a result of a constitutional and legally driven process. Furthermore, in spite of the large number of persons on the OLE, it should be borne in mind that GECOM’s polling day arrangements are robust enough to allow all who are entitled to vote to do so after ‘running the gauntlet’ characterized by utilizing folios provided by GECOM to staff members and party polling agents at polling stations; the presentation by every registered elector of the prescribed means of identifying oneself such as an ID card or passport, and, with the signing of the Statement of Poll (SOP) by presiding officers and party polling agents following the close of poll.
The robustness of GECOM’s electoral system prevents attempts at cheating or multiple voting on Election Day. From the foregoing, it is clear that the concerns/ question raised by SN in its editorial are issues that can be addressed but only within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of Guyana.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
