En 
Ar GUYANA | DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE: COURT RULING THREATENS ELECTORAL INTEGRITY SAYS VINCENT ALEXANDER
Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Vincent Alexander
GEORGETOWN, Guyana, April 6, 2025 - In a decision that strikes at the very heart of Guyana's democratic foundation, Chief Justice George has dismissed a judicial review application that could reshape how elections are conducted across the nation.
The ruling, which allows mere "claims" of residency to replace verified physical presence for voter registration, has been denounced by political analyst Vincent Alexander as "the demolition of the architecture of our so-called democracy."
The controversial judgment, handed down in the court of first instance last week, rejected Carol Joseph's challenge to recent amendments to the National Registration Act implemented by GECOM.
At stake is not simply a procedural technicality, but the fundamental relationship between citizens and their elected representatives in a constituency-based system.
"Our Law is being unclothed of its spirit," Alexander asserts in his scathing critique of the ruling, which appears below. The decision effectively eliminates the requirement for physical verification at a registrant's claimed address—a safeguard previously considered essential for electoral integrity in local government elections.
Chief Justice George based her ruling on constitutional provisions that establish age and citizenship as the primary qualifications for voter registration. However, critics argue this narrow interpretation ignores both the historical evolution of Guyana's electoral system and the constitutional architecture designed to ensure genuine local representation.
The implications are profound. Without verification of actual residency, the system becomes vulnerable to manipulation through "phantom voters"—individuals who claim addresses where they don't actually live, potentially overwhelming the genuine votes of actual residents in local elections. This phenomenon, Alexander suggests, creates "contrived majorities" that undermine legitimate community representation.
At the crux of the dispute is the distinction between "claiming an address" and actually "residing" somewhere—concepts the court appears to have conflated despite clear constitutional language emphasizing that local government exists to involve people "in managing and developing the communities in which they live."
While proponents of the amendment argue that stricter verification requirements might lead to disenfranchisement, Alexander counters that rights must be balanced against potential harms.
"The right to vote should not facilitate an alien vote that undermines and devalues the vote of the members of a constituency," he writes, stressing that redirecting voters to their true place of residence preserves both their rights and the integrity of the system.
The ruling stands as only the opening salvo in what promises to be a protracted legal battle. With two higher courts still available for appeal, this case may ultimately determine whether Guyana's electoral system serves its constitutional purpose or becomes, as Alexander fears, a hollow shell of democratic principles.
In his own words, Vincent Alexander presents his full argument below:
April 4, 2025
Dear Editor,
Justice George presiding over the court of 1st instance (there are two higher level courts that can be called upon to review her decision) handed down a judgment dismissing Carol Joseph`s request for judicial review of the implementation, by GECOM, of the amendment to the National Registration Act, which provides for the mere claim of an address, rather than the previous provision (verification of residency of an applicant) as a condition ante for registration, and consequentially the inclusion on the voters list, for persons eighteen years and above
I hasten to clarify that the issue at hand is not house-to-house registration. Rather, it is about whether registration requires that the registrant be physically (in person) verified at the given registration address.
May I also hypothesize/postulate, at the very inception, that the amendment to the National Registration Act; GECOM`s embrace of the amendment; and the Judge`s dismissal of Carol Joseph`s application are indications of our Law being unclothed of its spirit, while facilitating the demolition of the architecture of our “so called” democracy.
Carol Joseph called upon the court to rule that verification of a registrant at the registrant`s address is an essential prerequisite for the registration of that registrant, in relation to those elections or parts thereof that are constituency based.
The Chief Justice ruled that there is no such need. According to the report in Demerara Waves that Ruling was premised on Article 159(1): “No person shall vote at an election unless he or she is registered as an elector.” (apparently the Chief Justice also relied on 159(2) and 159(2)(a):
” …a person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector for elections if, and shall not be so qualified unless, … he or she is of the age of eighteen years or upward and … - (a) is a citizen of Guyana”.
In effect she relies on two criteria for registration as an elector: age and citizenship, respectively; and Article 172(1): “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organized so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live.”
I find the judgment to be myopic. It neither takes the Constitution as a whole into consideration; nor the historical evolution of the provisions for the realization of an electoral democracy in Guyana.
Hence, my contention is that the Constitution is being relied on without reference to its principles (spirit), which are foundational to all that’s in the Constitution; and the architecture for our democracy is being demolished by the introduction of provisions that are anti-democratic.
While the constitution clearly enshrines the right of electors to vote, it specifies that such persons must meet certain qualifications: be a Guyanese 18 years and above, in addition to satisfying “such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law.”
It therefore defies logic when other provisions are not considered. For example, article 73 stipulates that “Members of a regional democratic council shall be elected by persons residing in the region and registered as electors for the purpose of article 159.”
This provision has to be read in conjunction with 159 which it references and clearly cannot be interpreted to mean that one can simply ”claim” an address. “Residing” and “Claiming an address” are not coterminous.
That they are not, is enforced by other provisions such as, article 71(1): “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organized so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live.”
“Claiming an address” cannot be equated to ‘living there’. It is the verification of actually living there (residency) that differentiates one from the other. Hence the previous provision (National Registration Regulation 4A) that provided for verification.
The logic here is that the elections establish a relationship between the voter and the elected person(s) that is premised on the elected person(s) having responsibilities in relation to the conduct of public affairs that affect the elector. “Claiming an address” is no platform for such a relationship.
It is living there that creates the relationship commencing with voting and extends to ‘taking decisions which are binding … upon … citizens of their area’, as provided for in article 75 of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice trivializes the reason for an address being verified. She contends that it is only required to determine where the registrant will be listed to vote.
She fails to understand that in any constituency based elections, in a democratic society, residency ensures that the voter votes at the place where he or she has an interest in what the elected will be doing; and decisions taken to affect him or her, when elected.
The overriding provision is the Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic and Social System, Chapter II of the Constitution, which clearly articulates and enshrines the bases on which the Constitution and the arms of the state, including “the courts” should operate, as articulated in article 39(1) of the Constitution. No law or provisions are exempted from being guided by those principles.
Article 9 stipulates that the people exercise their sovereignty through their representatives and their democratic organs. Here again the relationship between the people of a specific areas and their democratic organs is emphasized.
Further articulated is that “Local government by freely elected representatives of the people is an integral part of the democratic organization of the State” with the principle objective of the system being the establishment of “an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens … in the management and decision-making that directly affect their well- being.” Participation infers not just voting for someone.
It infers a living relationship in relation to common geographic interests (residency) and being elected to conduct the public affairs of the electorate. That can only mean someone who lives there, rather than someone who claims to live there. Living there must therefore be verified as oppose to the claim which only requires that the existence of the address be verified.
For some who simply claim to live there not being verified opens up the system to fraud and manipulation.
Any provision that does not safe guard that relationship and provides for distortions such as residents not being able to determine their rulership, in an area in which they are not invested, flies in the face of the Constitution and devalues the votes of citizens who may become victims of contrived majorities and rulership.
All of the aforementioned must be seen from the historical perspective, the evolution of the system.
The system has evolved from a single constituency system over the years to a politically and geographically decentralized system of democracy that is clearly articulated in article 78B which provides for ‘representation and accountability to the electors.’
This relationship cannot be claimed. It has to be evidently real. One of the elements for establishing that realness is the connection between the voters and the elected in a common space of interest. The person has to be known to actually live there to enjoy such a relationship.
Of course the question of disenfranchisement has been proffered as the reason for not imposing strictures in relation to registration and voting.
But, that question is faulty. It does not consider the relative nature of rights as is clearly articulated in article 40 (2) of the Constitution: ‘the rights and freedoms of any individual should not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or public interest.’
Transposed to the matter being dealt with, the right to vote should not facilitate an alien vote that undermines and devalues the vote of the members of a constituency and their right to determine their representatives.
Suffice to say that no elector would be disqualified from participating in the national/general element of the multi-tier elections. All persons would be entitled vote for the members of the National Assembly who are elected by the nation at large.
The restriction is not intended to deny anyone a vote, it is intended to redirect them to where they truly belong, as was previously provided for, and where they have an entitlement by virtue of the enshrined nature of representation.
The amendment in addition to being incongruent with the fundamental provisions of the legal system seeks to undermine the spirit of the law (representation as a corner stone of our democracy) and provide a platform for the erosion of the architecture of the intended system of democracy.
Yours Truly
Vincent Alexander
-30-