Opposition’s hypocritical stance on democracy exposed

-as Chief Justice rules that residency not a requirement to vote in elections

The opposition’s hypocritical stance on democracy has again been exposed with the latest attempt by the People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R) political machine to disenfranchise voters, failing.

These sentiments were shared by Vice President and General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Dr Bharrat Jagdeo during a party press conference on Thursday.

On April 3, 2025, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire quashed a court case piloted by Carol Joseph, Chief Scrutineer and senior member of the PNC/R political organisation.

Joseph’s case sought to amend provisions outlined in the National Registration Act which removed residency as a mandatory requirement for citizens to vote in the general and regional elections.

In her submissions, Smith-Joseph argued that some individuals registered using addresses where they did not actually reside.  However, Chief Justice George dismissed these allegations, stating that no evidence was provided to substantiate the same.

Chief Justice George in her ruling also explained that the insertion of a residency requirement would be in clear violation of Article 159 (1) of Guyana’s constitution.

“This is an ongoing saga. Even as though they speak about democracy and the voters’ list… APNU is trying to take away peoples’ right to vote,” Dr Jagdeo said as he addressed the issue at Freedom House, Georgetown.

He went on to explain, “the core intention is that if they come to your address today; you’re on the voters’ list and they can’t find you there, you lose the right to vote… that is what APNU is trying to secure now.”

This move, Dr Jagdeo said, will not only affect supporters of his party but every single Guyanese who are eligible to vote.

Biometrics

Additionally, This tactic, Dr Jagdeo noted, aligns well with their calls to implement a biometric system at various polling places.

By implanting a biometric system, power is being granted to the more than 2,500 presiding officers to decide who is eligible to vote.

“This is nonsense. Everyday these people shout at the top of their voices about how democratic they are and all of that,” the general secretary stated.

The opposition’s calls for biometrics are based on fraudulent voting, which they alleged was present in the 2020 elections; however, to this day, not a single shred of evidence has been presented to substantiate these claims.

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.