…upholds ruling that residency not a requirement to vote
…confirms that AG’s mystery Act of 1991 “irrelevant”

The Court of Appeal on Monday upheld the August 14, 2019 High Court ruling by acting Chief Justice Roxane George which blocked the removal of persons from the National Register of Registrants (NRR) Database – something that the House-to-House (H2H) Registration exercise sought to do by creating a new database that would have excluded non-residents.

The Appellate panel, consisting of Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory, unanimously voted to dismiss the appeal filed by Attorney General Basil Williams against the decision of Chief Justice Roxane George on the H2H Registration case by filed Christopher Ram.
In handing down the ruling, Chancellor Cummings-Edwards agreed with previous arguments of the Attorney General who had claimed that the case has no relations to the upcoming March 2 General and Regional Elections since the Notice of Appeal was filed in September 2019 – three months before President David Granger’s election proclamation.
She noted, “this matter is not an elections petition matter, and does not determine the validity of the elections…it has nothing to do with elections but issues arising from the Constitution”.

No relevance
Nevertheless, she asserted that the panel saw it fit to overrule the AG’s submissions which argue that residency is listed as a requirement in Guyana’s Constitution to vote.

Pointing to a piece of ‘sunset’ legislation resurrected by Williams, namely the Constitution Amendment Number 4, Act of 1991 that was never included in the Constitution, Chancellor Cummings-Edwards agreed with former Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s arguments that it has no relevance to current events but rather, is relevant to the period prior to the 1992 elections.
“Citizenship of a country must carry some privilege, and voting seems to be one such privilege…We are of the view, therefore, that the right to vote should not be curtailed,” she noted.
As such, the Court accepted and adopted every submission Nandlall made on behalf of Ram as well as submissions made by the Guyana Bar Association. After the court proceedings, a content Nandlall told the media that such a victory is a significant one and stands in accordance with the country’s laws.
“This is a significant victory I think for democracy, for constitutionality, for the rights and freedom of the electorate of our country. I think this is a good ruling that has sound bases in law and in the Constitution.”
Meanwhile, AG Williams, on behalf of the Government, expressed that they will be challenging the ruling at the level of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) since, according to him, despite the Court’s decision, it is “ludicrous”.
“We will go to the CCJ…we will appeal in the normal course but I mean the Court made its decision, that’s how the law develops. It won’t be the first or the last,” Williams stated.
The Chief Justice had ruled that persons, once registered, could not be removed by enumerators without just cause. In the AG’s appeal, however, the Chief Justice is accused of being misconceived in law by not properly considering Section 6 of the National Registration Act.
According to the AG, Section 6 of the Act makes residency a requirement for registration during the qualifying date period. The AG is also alleging that the Chief Justice, somehow, breached the separation of powers doctrine by ruling that GECOM could not remove registrants who were alive and well.