GUYANA | Ramkarran and Singh must choose right side of history on biometrics

Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran is one of the few Guyanese who can genuinely claim to have played a central role in shaping this nation as a lawful state—one where the power and duty to manage and develop the country lies with its people, especially when it comes to issues directly affecting their well-being.

As Chairman of the 1999 Constitution Reform Commission, which emerged from the Herdmanston Accord and St. Lucia Statement following the 1997 General and Regional Elections, Ramkarran was at the forefront of efforts to stabilise the nation.

Many still remember the post-election turbulence of that period; an environment where division, denial of basic rights, and the deepening of ethnic and racial tensions were weaponised for political gain. On both sides of the divide, the cries of the people were loud and clear, fuelled by fear for their futures.

Ramkarran, along with Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chair Retired Justice Claudette Singh, witnessed firsthand the challenges of those days-the protests, the violence, and the destruction of livelihoods. Both were in positions to observe, in different capacities, the anguish of ordinary citizens, not the elites.

So, if Ramkarran and Justice Singh can appreciate that laws are meant to serve the people, why are they now standing in the way of a system that could create a more just and equitable society?

If biometrics is the solution to ensuring fair, transparent elections, why should they seek roadblocks instead of solutions? The Constitution or electoral law isn’t inflexible; it allows for amendments. We’ve seen this before with the reforms implemented by President Desmond Hoyte and Opposition Leader Cheddi Jagan in the 1990s. Why can’t we apply this same principle 35 years later? We have seen GECOM, on Singh’s watch, make rules/law (Order 60/2020) for the 2020 Elections.

I ask Ralph, someone I’ve known for decades, whose father, Boysie Ramkarran, and my own, Stephen Lewis, shared a long friendship, why, at this critical juncture, is he telling the nation that biometrics is impossible? Why not work with us to make it possible? This is not just a legal issue; it’s about responding to the desire and will of the people. The same question goes to Justice Singh, who in 2019, upon taking office as Chair of GECOM, knew full well that the people had been demanding biometrics for years. Now, she too must act to make it happen.

oth Ramkarran and Justice Singh are aware of the widespread support for biometrics, across the political spectrum, from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) to the People’s National Congress (PNCR).

Ramkarran, as a leader of constitutional reform, has a duty to advise on how to bring the people’s desire to life, not to defend why it can’t happen. Similarly, Justice Singh’s responsibility is clear: to devise a plan and present it to the government for funding, making biometrics a reality in our elections.

We live in a nation where elections have too often devolved into ethnic censuses and violent clashes, where our political system has failed to foster “inclusionary democracy,” as mandated by Article 13 of the Constitution. Instead, elections have become a source of misery and national disintegration.

Ralph, I ask you: don’t you feel a civic duty to help resolve this conflict, rather than perpetuate it? Our fathers sought to build a better society, though their work is far from complete. Isn’t it time for us to do our part in contributing to what they started, and leave a stronger, more unified nation for future generations?

We must act decisively before the next general and regional elections. Our bloated Voters List, almost the size of the entire population, has raised alarm bells both locally and internationally. We don’t need to be told that this is a recipe for disaster; it’s clear to anyone who’s paying attention. If we don’t address this, we risk repeating the catastrophic human and infrastructural damage of previous elections.

History has shown us the ugly aftermath of election violence: political graveyards, civilian clashes, police brutality, and widespread property destruction. The 2020 elections were marked by PPP supporters attacking schoolchildren on the West Coast Berbice and the death of a PPP protester following an altercation. In 2011, police shot at APNU+AFC supporters, injuring several, including prominent figures like attorney-at-law James Bond and retired Guyana Defence Force Chief of Staff, Edward “Eddie” Collins.

The 2015 elections, relatively peaceful, benefited from the tone set by the David Granger/Moses Nagamootoo administration—a commitment to upholding citizens’ right to peaceful protest.

But violence persists, and it will continue to escalate unless we act. As of today, the forces preventing the introduction of biometrics are the same ones that once supported it: the PPP, which now opposes it, and GECOM, which, under the cover of Ralph Ramkarran’s influence, is stalling progress.

This nation stands at a dangerous crossroads. But those of us who want an electoral process that is free, fair, and transparent know biometrics is not only possible—it is necessary. We must continue to fight for it before the next elections. The evidence of our past, and the current state of our Voters List, makes it clear: this is the only path forward.

And to that, we, the people, say: enough is enough!

-30-