High Court dismisses PNCR’s Residency Requirement challenge

The High Court of Guyana has dismissed the application challenging the eligibility criteria for voter registration, ruling that there is no residency requirement for citizens to be registered or to vote in the country’s general elections.

Acting Chief Justice Roxane George handed down the decision on Thursday, affirming that verification of an applicant’s physical presence at a listed address is not a prerequisite for voter registration, as stated in Article 159 of the constitution, which dates back to 1980.

The case, brought by People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Chief Election Scrutineer Carol Smith-Joseph, contested the National Registration (Amendment) Act of 2022 and challenged the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) House-to-House registration process. The ruling applies to both regional and general elections.

Joseph, represented by attorney Dexter Todd, had sought a declaration requiring not only verification of an address but also confirmation that the applicant resides at or has a legitimate connection to that location.

The court heard arguments raising concerns about addresses linked to abandoned buildings, places where no one has lived for years, generic location names, and cases where individuals claim residency at addresses where they are unknown to the local community.

However, the chief justice stated that no evidence was provided by the applicant to support her claims.

“The applicant has produced no evidence to support the contentions that there are persons who have been found not to be located at the address stated on their registration information, that is, that they do not reside at their addresses claimed,” the Chief Justice stated.

In an interview with the Department of Public Information, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, stated that the claim will only disenfranchise Guyanese of their legal right to vote.

“The constitution must always be construed and interpreted liberally and purposively for the purpose of advancing and securing rights, not depriving and restricting rights,” the attorney general argued.

This is not the first that the Residency Requirement Casehas been triedin court.

“We have travelled this road many times. The PNCR has been there at all times. For example, they have been the ones who championed the cause for the use of a voter ID card in the 1997 elections, and they got through. That election was set aside by the court because the law imposed a requirement [voter ID card] that the constitution did not provide for. Now again, they were trying to impose another requirement by insisting on verifying a person’s residency at an address for the purpose of voting. So, working backwards, they are attempting to disenfranchise Guyanese,” stated the minister of legal affairs.

In 2019, a case was brought to the court requiring the removal of the name of a person who is currently on the list of registrants once disproved in a house-to-house registration process. The case was dismissed.

In 2022, a similar case was brought forward for regional elections, and the case was dismissed again.

Six years later, the matter has found its way into court for the third time. The dismissal of the case reinforces the legal framework governing voter registration in Guyana, maintaining that the absence of a residency requirement does not invalidate an individual’s right to vote. The only requirement is being above the age of eighteen and being a Guyanese citizen.