Dear Editor,
The Chairperson of GECOM along with the CEO and Deputy CEO co-hosted a press conference following the 2023 local government elections. Of interest to me is the Chairperson`s pronouncements, at that presser, on the utilization of biometrics by GECOM.
The first observation is that her statements differed from her Rulings on the occasions when this matter was discussed by the Commission. The first discussion was in relation to the capturing of fingerprints electronically. GECOM`s Administration on the basis of a prior unanimous decision provided for the purchase of the needed equipment to capture fingerprints electronically in the 2023 budget estimates. GECOM currently captures fingerprints manually. The reality is that the manual capture of fingerprints which are then converted to electronic images results in a number of prints that are not suitable for unique identification and cross matching. Those fingerprints cannot serve the intended purpose. Direct, electronic capture will eliminate that problem, hence the prior technically informed and unanimous decision to implement the electronic capture of fingerprints. Shockingly, the PPP/C-nominated Commissioners reneged on the prior decision and with the support of the Chairperson voted down the proposed purchase of the equipment and consequentially the introduction of the electronic capture of fingerprints. On that occasion, the Chairperson supported the idea subject to a feasibility study although the Commission had already received technical advice on the matter. At the recent press conference, she “underscored the importance of constitutional reform prior to the implementation biometric systems in Guyana`s voting process”. What she effectively sought to do is to take a carte blanche position on biometrics and improperly relocate the decision on biometrics from GECOM to the Parliament. Actually, GECOM already uses biometrics. What is at stake is, in the first instance, the electronic capture of fingerprints, as opposed to the current inefficient and partially ineffective manual capture. There is absolutely no need for any legislative measure for the introduction of the electronic capture of fingerprints by GECOM. The National Registration Act provides for GECOM to capture fingerprints and to determine the manner in which they are captured. The Chairperson`s apparent backpedalling on a prior decision; and her own articulated ruling is ominous. Her contention that the refusal of anyone to participate in the electronic capture “would disenfranchise voters” is disingenuous. As it is, voters are required to be registered and to be fingerprinted as part of that process. The only change being proposed is the manner in which the fingerprints would be captured. In fact, registration is compulsory and like many other instances where rights are involved the actualization of the entitlement requires an administrative process.
The second observation has to do with her Ruling on the use of electronic biometric identification at the place of poll. She ruled that based on her own judgment in the Esther Perreira case, electronic biometric identification could only be used as a complementary form of identification subject to a prior feasibility study. Her latest pronouncement contradicts that Ruling. She now contends that there is need for a constitutional amendment, period, without any reference to her earlier Ruling that the implementation of electronic biometric identification is permissible as a complementary form of identification.
In my humble opinion, her disposition now and prior are both flawed, suffice to note the backpedalling now.
The procedure for voting is provided for in the Representation of the People Act. The identification of the voter is required in order to be able to exercise one`s franchise. Subjecting one`s self to electronic fingerprint identification does not present any greater demand or impediment in a system that requires independent confirmation that the person who presents herself/himself is indeed the person recorded in the List of Electors. In fact, the electronic fingerprint identification is of greater efficacy than any other form of identification currently in use. Electronic biometric identification is not additional identification as was the case with the voter identification card that was struck down in the Esther Perreira case. It merely requires the registered person to present himself or herself rather than some document that could be falsified or fraudulently presented as occurred in the 2020 elections. It is virtually impossible to falsify oneself as opposed to falsifying documentation.
Undoubtedly, there will be issues when transitioning from manual fingerprinting to electronic fingerprinting; and visual identification to electronic identification, but those are not the issues being raised by the inhibitors to progress at GECOM. They are making every effort to stymie the improvement of the system in the face of known deficiencies. Is it that those deficiencies are so effectively managed by one contestant that the retention of the current system serves their purpose?
The Chairperson also mentioned that GECOM “has implemented necessary safeguards at the polling stations”. There is no new measure that GECOM has implemented to address the complaints made by both of the major parties in 2015 and 2020. Notably, the parties vacillate and only complain conveniently and in apparent self-interest.
GECOM is still to respond to the bloating of the list by the retention of thousands who die overseas and remain on the electoral list. In 2015, the Carter Center proposed that based on immigration records the names of probable absentee voters should be highlighted on the electoral list to provide for greater vigilance. The legal framework for implementing that measure exists, yet GECOM is obstinate and did not even entertain a review of its 2020 performance with the intent of identifying and rectifying flaws in the system. GECOM is comatose as of 2020 when it comes to reviews and innovation.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
