AG questions opposition’s lack of GECOM objections despite calls for biometrics

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC is once again pointing to the opposition’s weak and insubstantial allegations of issues with the voting process, reflected in their silence in the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)’s recently concluded claims and objections cycle.

He said that according to GECOM’s most recent report, despite over 4,000 transactions being conducted, no claims from the opposition have been received.

“Over 4,000 transactions done in the last cycle, and not a single claim or objection from the opposition. Yet, all day long, they are complaining about biometrics… why they are not objecting?” he questioned during his weekly televised programme, ‘Issues in the News’.

During the last cycle, there were a total of nine objections, none of which came from the political opposition.

The attorney general assumed that the opposition’s silence indicates that the system is working to their satisfaction.

He suggested that their consistent call for biometrics is after all a smoke screen to distract from their imminent loss at the 2025 General and Regional Elections.

The opposition has amplified its calls for biometric voter identification on the basis of fraudulent voting, which they alleged was present in the 2020 elections. However, to this day, they have failed to provide any tangible evidence to substantiate these claims.

“If the system is so flawed, and if the system is generating so many impersonators, and if persons are committing fraud with such great frequency, abusing and manipulating the system…  you can’t find one? We’re not asking you for 1000 transactions, or 1000 objections. We are asking you for one. Prove one,” he pressed.

He said that the combined opposition’s “mindless parroting” and failure to object to over 4,000 transactions have illustrated the outrageousness of their allegations.

Back in January, GECOM’S Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh ruled that introducing a biometric system as a mandatory, or only, means of identification would impose an additional requirement for voters and prove therefore unconstitutional.