Numbers on voters’ list don’t add up

We cannot unilaterally remove names from list – GECOM boss

As of 2018, the Guyana Bureau of Statistics estimated the nation’s population to be 744,962. However the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has estimated that most of the population is eligible to vote. The Commission’s Revised List OF Electors contains the names of 661,378 persons.

A calculation leaves a difference of 83,584 non-eligible voters between the two figures, purportedly to be the number of persons who are Under-18.

However, a source informed Kaieteur News that the population under 18 is within the vicinity of 280,000. Since then, the total population has been revised downward from 746,724 to 744,962.
That insignificant difference of 1,762 persons, keeping in mind that there have been no significant spikes or declines in birth and/or death rates, suggests that the difference of minors between 2012 and 2020 is equally insignificant.
There is a striking disparity between the reasonable 280,000 figure, as it relates to determining the minor population, and the 83,584 figure deduced from a subtraction of GECOM’s RLE total from the population total.

This disparity lends credence to assertions that the RLE is extremely flawed.
GECOM Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh, told Kaieteur News that while concerns over the disparity must be taken into consideration, there are a number of factors that contributes to the apparent bloating of the voters’ list.

For one, Justice Singh said, that the list is likely to include the names of persons who are dead or who no longer reside in Guyana.
“A lot of people die and migrate but we have no means of verifying that information.”

The Elections Chair said that the General Registrar’s Office (GRO) which is supposed to record the births and deaths is also at a disadvantage, since there are a number of cases where people do not register the deaths.
“There are incidences of persons who fail to register the death so there is no record at the GRO to provide for GECOM to compare and remove those names.”

She noted that GECOM has no means of cleaning the list, except through the claims and objections period or through notice of deaths. A ruling by the Chief Justice Roxane George further affirmed this position.
Justice George’s ruling maintained that it is unconstitutional to remove persons from the voters’ list unless they are dead or otherwise disqualified in accordance with Article 159 (2), (3) and (4) of the Constitution. The ruling is set for appeal.

Justice Singh noted until further authorized, GECOM is challenged in this regard.
“Due to the circumstances the recent House- to -House registration and the verification exercise had to be truncated. Because of the time constraints, we could not verify some of the data collected from the exercise.
“From that exercise, there is approximately 6,534 new registrants that could not be spoken for. ..And then there are those who have not collected their ID cards from as far back as 2008.”

“But we can’t just remove people’s names because we could not locate them. We don’t have that right to disenfranchise these persons by removing their names from the voters’ list.”

At present, she noted, GECOM is utilising every avenue available to the Commission to ensure that persons are able to make claims and objections to the RLE to ensure that data is accurate for the production of the official list of electors.
“So far, we have been proactive in ensuring that we weed out the duplicates and rectify any issues as far as we are legally capable of doing, where the voters’ list is concerned.”

Justice Singh is confident that the list will be credible enough to be used at the Elections.
“We have a lot of observers and technical support staff so we well equipped to oversee the process once persons turn up with the relevant documents they will be allowed to cast their ballots,” the Chair added.

The People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) had also raised concerns about the disparity, with a caveat, accusing elements at the Secretariat of interfering with the integrity of the electoral process.
In a response to the party, GECOM labeled the accusation as baseless, and designed to cause confusion in the public domain particularly as it relates to the administrative and operational procedures of the Secretariat in the preparation and production of the list.

The party’s assertions also take issue with the House-to-House data having been used in the preparation of the RLE.
In GECOM’s statement, Public Relations Officer, Yolanda Ward, stated, “GECOM has vehemently assured electors on several occasions that the data garnered from the House-to-House Registration exercise would be used in the preparation of the list for General and Regional Elections.”

Chairperson Justice Claudette Singh had emphasized on several occasions the ruling of the Chief Justice that the House-to-House process was lawful and not unconstitutional and therefore the data garnered from such process must also be lawful and not unconstitutional.

She noted that the Revised List of Electors has been posted for public scrutiny and electors are urged to check and verify their information at locations in their respective areas or on the GECOM’s website.
“If there has been any advertence on the part of GECOM, electors are advised to immediately visit the GECOM Registration Office to have the information updated accordingly.”
Ward said that the free, fair and transparent processes in the production of a credible list are the hallmark of credible elections.

“The Guyana Elections Commission will ensure that the name of every registered eligible elector is properly accounted for on the Official List of Electors.
The Guyana Elections Commission is therefore urging the citizenry not to give any credence to false information in the public domain and wishes to assure the electorate that every endeavour will be made by GECOM to deliver credible elections,” she said.

Though the PPP’s assertions of tampering and other ills are so far unfounded, the numerical discrepancies are still significant in nature and cannot be explained by unregistered deaths and overseas voters alone.