Dear Editor,
There has been much debate – and concern – about the conditions which Commonwealth citizens must meet to qualify to vote in Guyana’s elections. This issue is addressed in Article 59 of the Constitution of Guyana which states:
“Subject to the provisions of article 159 (being registered as an elector), every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana.” Emphasis added.
Article 159 (3) goes on to provide in a roundabout, double negative way that a person shall not be so qualified unless he or she is a non-citizen Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year before the qualifying date. While 159 (3) not only appears to offer some clarification – and is by international standards quite liberal – the requirement of domicile qualifies the one-year residency which is not further defined. It does not say that residency means continuous, or if not continuous, for one year during the past X or Y years.
Unlike domicile, residency is often a practical rather than a strictly legal matter. Domicile on the other hand, is a very strict concept. A person is born with a domicile which is called his domicile of origin. That status can be changed to another domicile, known as a domicile of choice, but the conditions are onerous, as ruled in a UK tax case. In that case, a man born in Halifax, Canada in 1910 who served in the RAF from 1932 to 1959 married an English woman in 1946 and lived in England for decades but always intended to return to Canada if his wife died before him.
The tax authorities claimed that he had acquired a domicile of choice in England where he intended to reside indefinitely, if not perpetually. And that his intention to return to Canada if his wife died was too uncertain to negative the acquisition of domicile of choice. The Chancery Division of the High Court agreed with the tax authorities, but its decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which held that since the taxpayer intended to return to Canada if he survived his wife, he had not acquired an English domicile.
If we apply that principle to the Bajan who is a permanent employee with CARICOM in Guyana but who intends eventually to leave Guyana, that person would be resident in Guyana during that time but not domiciled and resident in Guyana. The same would be true of the Trinidadian or Indian or Bangladeshi construction or oil sector worker.
Even if such a person was mistakenly registered as a voter, the Constitution states that that person is not eligible to vote in our elections. If GECOM had improperly registered that person, it must take corrective action and ensure that the person does note vote. I cannot see how to allow an unqualified person to vote would be the lesser of two evils.
GECOM should address this matter to remove any lingering concerns citizens and the parties might have.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram