No electoral process can replace the life of any Guyanese… I assure you that the Community remains committed to the people of Guyana and remains resolute that the report of its Observer Mission was very clear in its conclusions as to the will of the Guyanese people as reflected in the recount which they monitored.”** These remarks were made by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley during the 2020 Guyana Elections Recount Exercise. At that time, Mottley was serving as Chairperson of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), a role she continues to hold. She firmly stated that the results declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) mirrored the expressed will of the electorate, a will she urged all Guyanese to acknowledge.

Order 60/2020, issued on May 4, 2020, initiated the recount process and reads in part:

WHEREAS the Guyana Elections Commission, in exercise of the authority vested in it under Article 162 of the Constitution and pursuant to Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 15 of 2000, seeks to remove difficulties connected with the application of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03, in implementing its decisions relating to the conduct of the aforementioned recount of all ballots cast at the said elections, including the reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled, stamped, and as deemed necessary, their counterfoils/stubs; authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of votes cast without ID cards; the number of proxies issued and the number utilised; statistical anomalies; occurrences recorded in the Poll Book.”

In line with this Order, the recount process revealed several discrepancies. However, Mottley maintained that any objections to the results should be formally addressed through an Election Petition. Legal experts contend that Order 60/2020 rendered such petitions unnecessary, as GECOM had already reviewed and validated the votes. They argue that certain ballots, which would typically be invalid under the Representation of the Peoples Act, were deemed ‘valid’ during the recount.

In a statement made on June 24, 2020, Mottley reiterated CARICOM’s strong stance that “no voter must be disenfranchised in determining the credibility of this or any election.” Following her logic, analysts suggest that CARICOM should similarly advocate for the participation of only legitimate voters in elections. This focus would help tackle issues such as voter fraud, multiple voting, and voting by deceased individuals—all critical factors affecting electoral credibility. These issues could be alleviated through a clean voter list and the adoption of biometric voting systems, neither of which are currently planned for the 2025 elections.

There have been ongoing calls for a clean voter list and biometric systems for over five years, including from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). This demand stems from the desire of the Guyanese populace to ensure the integrity of elections and to safeguard against voter disenfranchisement. PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo, who was then the Opposition Leader, stressed the necessity of a more accurate voter list and enhanced biometric measures to reduce the possibility of multiple voting. He argued that advanced biometric systems, which go beyond simple photo identification, could drastically decrease instances of voter fraud. Jagdeo’s concerns became particularly pronounced following the PPP’s loss in the 2015 elections. Now, the Jagdeo-led PPP is once again advocating for a clean voter list and biometric systems, expressing trust in GECOM’s capacity to conduct fair and credible elections.

Voter fraud and post-election unrest have been recurring issues in Guyana, often disrupting the peace and ethnic harmony that many strive to maintain. Violence surrounding elections has been a persistent problem, particularly in recent years, with the exception of 2015. This pattern of unrest is something that many are eager to avoid, especially in light of the increasing demand for biometric voting.

Prime Minister Mottley expressed her sorrow over the death of one individual during the protests following the 2020 elections, which were instigated by PPP supporters in West Coast Berbice. These supporters engaged in violent actions, affecting innocent bystanders, including schoolchildren and law enforcement, which ultimately led to one supporter’s death. The protests stemmed from a belief that the PPP was being unjustly denied the election results while the nation awaited the official declaration. Critics argue that if Mottley was troubled by the loss of life during these protests, she should similarly be concerned about the potential for escalated violence in future elections if biometric voting is not implemented.

The role of CARICOM and other international observers in addressing concerns regarding Guyana’s voter list has faced criticism for being largely overlooked by both the government and GECOM. As of January 2025, while Guyana’s population is approximately 750,000, the voter roll lists 735,000 names, indicating a potentially bloated register. CARICOM’s lack of action regarding this issue has led to worries that it may be inadvertently facilitating an environment ripe for voter fraud.

In its 2020 report, CARICOM underscored the necessity for electoral reform, stating, **“As a minimum condition of electoral reform, the Team recommends the urgent need for the total re-registration of all voters in Guyana. It is clear that given the state of the voter registration of the country, Guyana was not adequately prepared for the 2020 poll. Yet circumstances beyond the control of the Commission precluded this preparedness. It therefore behooves the Commission to create a new voter registry, especially given the suspicion that the 2020 register was bloated, a suspicion which is not without merit.”**

As Guyana approaches its 2025 elections, the urgency for reform and the implementation of biometric systems is greater than ever to protect the integrity and credibility of the electoral process. This pursuit aligns with the fundamental principle that “no voter must be disenfranchised in determining the credibility of this or any election.”