Silence Amidst Calls: Opposition’s Stance on GECOM’s Biometrics Debate
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, has once again criticized the opposition for their unsubstantiated allegations regarding the voting process, particularly in light of the recent claims and objections cycle conducted by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). He highlighted that, according to GECOM’s latest report, despite over 4,000 transactions taking place, the opposition did not submit a single claim or objection.
“Over 4,000 transactions were conducted in the last cycle, and not one objection from the opposition. They continuously complain about biometrics; why haven’t they raised any objections?” he questioned during his weekly televised segment, ‘Issues in the News.’ During the most recent cycle, there were a total of nine objections, none of which originated from the political opposition.
The Attorney General suggested that the lack of objections from the opposition indicates their satisfaction with the current system. He posited that their ongoing demands for biometric identification might be a diversion tactic to deflect attention from their anticipated defeat in the upcoming 2025 General and Regional Elections.
The opposition has intensified its calls for biometric voter identification, alleging fraudulent voting during the 2020 elections. However, they have yet to present any concrete evidence to support these claims. “If the system is as flawed as they claim, and if impersonation and fraud are occurring so frequently, how can they not provide a single example? We’re not asking for a thousand objections; we simply want proof of one,” he emphasized.
Nandlall criticized the opposition’s repetitive assertions as “mindless parroting,” noting that their failure to challenge the over 4,000 transactions only underscores the absurdity of their allegations. He also referenced a ruling from January by GECOM’s Chairperson, retired Justice Claudette Singh, which determined that mandating a biometric system as the sole means of voter identification would impose unconstitutional additional requirements on voters.
