Dear Editor,
Last Tuesday at his press conference, Mr Aubrey Norton finally exposed the folly of his bloated list complaint. Since his assumption of Office as Leader of the Opposition, Mr Norton has made the voters’ list one of the focal points of his political advocacy. He has called for its retirement on the ground that it is “bloated” and for it to be replaced after a House-to-House Registration process.
In so doing, he completely ignored the constitutional and legal principles which are inextricably attendant to the voters’ list and how it is populated. That is, by virtue of Articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution, Guyanese are qualified to be registered on that list once they are 18 years and over; and that upon registration, are qualified to vote.
Likewise, Guyanese can only be removed from the list if they become disqualified and that the grounds of disqualification are explicitly set out in Article 159 of the Constitution. Mr Norton obdurately refuses to recognise that the identical course of action for which he espouses was attempted by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) under the stewardship of the unconstitutionally appointed James Patterson in 2019.
It would be recalled that this process launched by GECOM was challenged in the High Court which culminated in a written judgement delivered by Chief Justice Roxane George, CCH, SC, who admonished thus:
‘‘In order for the names of persons already registered to be removed from the list of electors, they would have to be deceased or otherwise become disqualified but failure of registered persons to be present or resident during the house-to-house exercise would not be such a disqualifier and such a person’s name can only be deleted if they no longer meet the qualifying criteria under Article 152 (9) or become disqualified under Article 159 (3) and (4).’’
Although these legal authorities have been proffered to Mr Norton and the APNU/AFC with painful regularity by GECOM, the Government and the Press, Mr Norton clings to his blinkered position. However last Tuesday at his press conference, presumably, reeling from a rebuke from the local press association, Mr Norton made certain crucial disclosures. For the first time he offered to the public an insight to enable an understanding of what he considers to be ‘bloat’ on the list. He disclosed that the bloat to which he refers consists of Guyanese who were granted immigrant and non-immigrant visas. He alleged that statistics from the United States of America, Homeland Security Department suggests that two hundred and fifty thousand Guyanese were issued with non-immigrant visas and two hundred thousand Guyanese were issued with immigrant visas.
It appears that Mr Norton’s contention is that these persons and every other Guyanese who are either residing overseas or are travelling abroad and who are on the list, constitute bloat on that list and should be removed – a notoriously flawed proposition from every conceivable perspective!
The legal truth is that these persons, once Guyanese and are eighteen years and over, are lawfully on that list and cannot be removed therefrom unless they become disqualified. Neither their travelling overseas, nor their residency in another jurisdiction, either temporarily or permanently, constitute a disqualification under the Constitution. In fact, the Chief Justice in her ruling, stated that if they were to be removed because of their non-residency in Guyana such a removal would be unlawful and unconstitutional. So last Tuesday, Mr Norton finally conceded, either wittingly or unwittingly, that what he is considering as ‘bloat’ on the list are Guyanese whose names are on that list in accordance with and by virtue of the supreme law of Guyana, the Constitution. His bloated list argument therefore, is completely without merit.
Perhaps recognising the folly of his own argument, when braced with questions from a reporter that he could not intelligently answer, he then disclosed that he is prepared to work with the PPP to amend the ‘’Constitution and the law.’’ This disclosure raises its own peculiar problems. Firstly, it is clear that Mr Norton would like to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Guyanese. These persons may not be permanent residents overseas, they may be vacationing, working, be overseas for medical or business reasons, or may simply be awaiting to have their immigration status regularised; some may be enjoying dual residence both in Guyana and overseas or they may be permanently overseas. To determine this ‘residence’ issue alone will become a legal nightmare.
However, that apart, is denying any segment of the citizenry of Guyana, their most cherished democratic right, the right to vote, a measure for which we should advocate? It must be emphasised that these persons may only qualify to vote in Guyana and no other jurisdiction as they are Guyanese and may not necessarily have acquired another nationality. Should they be denied that crucial democratic right to vote, in the land of their birth? No doubt these persons would include thousands of supporters of Mr Norton’s party. Importantly, has he explained this to them? In this regard, the dictum of Justice Hamilton in the American case of Greidlinger v Davis (1993) rings aloud:
’’It is axiomatic that no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.’’
Worse yet, Mr Norton by his own disclosures, is prepared to deny these Guyanese of their right to vote without even consulting them. For he says that he is prepared to work with the PPP to achieve this objective.
Having regard to the fact that he wants to achieve this objective before Local Government Elections, it is clear that public consultation is not within his contemplation. So in breach of all of his party’s manifesto promises of engaging in constitutional reforms by way of public consultation, Mr Norton is prepared to amend the Constitution by an agreement with the PPP, without public consultation. The Constitution as we all know is a pact between the State and the citizenry. This Opposition Leader wishes to alter that pact without consulting the other side, the people. But no one should be surprised. This is how the authoritarian operates.
Yesterday, the Alliance for Change (AFC), a party now reduced to a few leaders with even fewer followers, has indicated that it will not contest the Local Government Elections. No one should be surprised by this disclosure. Were they to contest, it is most unlikely that they would have won a seat in any Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) or municipality. It is the fear of this horrendous reality that has informed their decision. Noting else. To save face however, they have opportunistically latched on to the discredited bloated list argument peddled by their larger coalition partner.
In a press statement they rehashed the selfsame frivolous and vexatious contentions advanced by APNU in respect of the voters’ list. What I have stated above applies to these arguments, mutatis mutandis. They also resorted to the repetition of their irrational and ridiculous allegations of electoral irregularities in respect of the 2020 Regional and General Elections. It is apposite that I remind that the Caricom Team of Observers which they appointed to oversee the recount, found those very allegations to be fanciful, incredible, and incredulous. In similar vein, the coalition were unable to lead evidence to prove these allegations in two elections petition which they filed in the High Court. One recently suffered a natural death at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the other one is on its way.
In conclusion, I must reiterate like every country that has implemented the system of continuous registration, our system provides mechanisms to remove disqualified persons from the list at periodic intervals. The Claims and Objections mechanism is just one. The new amendments to the Representation of the People Act and the National Registration Act, will not only improve the existing mechanisms but will add new ones.
Sincerely,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, MP
Attorney General & Minister of Legal Affairs
