Technical, legal, privacy matters among issues preventing biometrics for elections 2025

Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice Claudette Singh has highlighted a number of issues preventing the introduction of biometrics for the upcoming national elections later this year. Among them are legal and ethical concerns, technical challenges, the matter of inclusivity and security among others. The chairman through a press release sought to clarify why the biometrics could not be used at this time since she said there was ongoing public discourse on the sensitive topic, with little consideration for the challenges and the obligations that must be addressed prior to the use of the biometric system.

It was explained that the motion to use the biometrics was circulated by GECOM Commissioner Vincent Alexander and was first discussed at the Commission on the 22nd November, 2023. The matter became a prominent agenda item at the statutory meetings of the Commission and it was during those deliberations that the Chief Election Officer (CEO), Mr. Vishnu Persaud was tasked with undertaking a feasibility study on the introduction of electronic fingerprinting at registration and biometric fingerprint identification of voters on Election Day. The feasibility study undertaken by the CEO presented several case studies on the use of biometrics fingerprinting in other countries, and highlighted multiple technical, legislative and administrative concerns, the chairman stated.

The study revealed technical challenges regarding the reliability and accuracy of biometric systems due to factors such as poor network connectivity, power outages, hardware malfunctions, and software glitches which could lead to delays in the voting process and raised concerns about the effectiveness of using biometrics for voter identification.  Data security concerns were identified since storing sensitive biometric data raises privacy and security risks, as any breach or misuse of this information could have severe consequences. For example, there have been instances of data breaches and leaks in India’s Aadhaar system, which has heightened apprehensions about the safety of voter biometric data.

Inclusivity issues also emerged regarding the use of biometric fingerprint identification for voting where certain segments of the population, such as the elderly, manual laborers, or individuals with disabilities, may face difficulties in having their fingerprints accurately scanned due to factors like worn-out fingerprints or physical impairments. This raises concerns about disenfranchisement and unequal access to voting rights. Legal and ethical concerns entail the legality of collecting and storing biometric data on a massive scale without robust data protection laws in place. Ethical dilemmas regarding consent, transparency, and accountability in handling voter biometrics also arose.

The accuracy and reliability of biometric fingerprint identification systems were also questioned, including false positives or negatives incidences that could lead to voter disenfranchisement or fraudulent activities if not properly addressed.  Infrastructural challenges due to vast size and diverse population could pose challenges for the widespread implementation of biometric voter identification. Remote areas often lack the necessary infrastructure to support biometric technology, making it difficult to ensure universal access to this voting method. Limited access to electricity and internet connectivity in some areas hindered the effectiveness of the system. Operational challenges of implementing the technology would include training election officials, maintaining equipment, and ensuring smooth operations on election days required significant resources and coordination.

The GECOM chair noted that in addition to the foregoing, the feasibility study also outlined cost implications, inadequate voter education, allegations of manipulation, resistance by political parties and public trust as challenges. Notwithstanding the benefits and challenges of biometric technology, it must be emphasized that within the context of Guyana, there is no legal provision and therefore, any such introduction at the place of poll would be unconstitutional since it will impose additional conditions on a person’s right to vote. “It was therefore against this backdrop and having considered the deliberations at the Commission that the Chairman decided that even if GECOM were to implement biometrics as a supplementary tool to identify persons, this will still require legislation since such a system would impose an additional requirement on voters and would therefore be unconstitutional.

The Chairman explained that, notwithstanding the challenges of biometrics, it would be unrealistic for GECOM to be ready for the upcoming elections considering all the things would be required to do such as: (a) holding stakeholder consultations to determine whether GECOM should introduce biometrics, (b) Consulting with stakeholders including the Government and the Parliamentary Political Parties to determine whether it is even possible to do so now, considering things like costs and any legislative amendments necessary to cater fully for it, (c) procurement of equipment for the introduction of biometrics in the registration process and at the place of poll (d) training of staff on the use of such equipment, (e) Public education on the introduction of these systems and how they are to be used to aid in registration and in voting.

Benefits of using the biometric system include a high level of security, as they are unique to each individual, making it difficult for fraudulent activities such as impersonation or multiple voting to occur,  it offers a more accurate method of voter identification compared to traditional methods like ID cards or signatures, thereby reducing the chances of errors in the electoral process, guards against electoral fraud; thereby ensuring the integrity of the voting process and the use of biometric fingerprints can streamline the voter identification process, leading to faster and more efficient voting.