–rules GECOM acted lawfully
WITH just days remaining before Monday’s General and Regional Elections, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh, on Friday, upheld the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) decision to exclude the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) from the ballot in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine.

FGM had moved to the High Court, arguing that GECOM acted unfairly by omitting the party from those districts. The case was filed by FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher (the applicant).
However, in his ruling, Chief Justice Singh dismissed the case, calling the party’s contentions “ludicrous.”
He emphasised that the law — the Constitution of Guyana and the Representation of the People Act (RoPA)— requires political parties to submit candidate lists for every district they wish to contest. FGM’s failure to provide lists for the three regions automatically disqualified it from appearing on the ballots there, the judge held.

The FGM also asked to review the exclusion of Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity (ALP), led by Simona Broomes, from the ballots in Regions One, Two, Eight, and Nine during the General Elections. However, Justice Singh found that GECOM had acted in accordance with the law, as ALP failed to submit candidate lists for those regions.
“The FGM party did not submit a list to GECOM to contest the geographical constituencies located in administrative Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine, nor did ALP submit a list to GECOM to contest the geographical constituencies located in administrative Regions One, Two, Eight, and Nine.
In this regard, the omission of those parties for those geographic constituencies by GECOM was completely lawful.
“In fact, I find that placing those parties on the ballot paper for those geographical constituencies would have been a breach of the Constitution,” he held.

Attorney Dr. Vivian Williams, representing FGM, argued that GECOM’s exclusion of parties from certain geographic constituencies violated the Constitution and sections of the RoPA.
He contended that the system discriminates against voters in regions where their preferred party does not appear on the ballot, citing Articles 59, 149, and 13 of the Constitution.
Williams maintained that he believed GECOM is in breach of RoPA and the Constitution, while emphasising that RoPA itself is not in conflict with the Constitution.
“RoPA is, in my humble opinion, not inconsistent with the Constitution. What is inconsistent with the Constitution is GECOM’s application of ROPA.”
Justice Singh, however, ruled that no such breach had occurred.
He said: “A party being lawfully omitted from a ballot paper cannot result in applicant’s rights under Article 30 of the Constitution being violated. In any event, the applicant has not presented any evidence of a breach of this Article. The applicant’s assertion is speculative…”
He emphasised that it “is a fact” that FGM and ALP did not submit lists to contest these regions, as required under Section 11(2)(b) of RoPA.
He, therefore, concluded that the applicant’s claim that GECOM was discriminating against voters in certain regions was not supported by any evidence.
Referencing Article 13 of the Constitution, which upholds inclusive democracy, Justice Singh concluded that there was no evidence showing that citizens were being denied meaningful participation by the lawful exclusion of these two parties in the named regions.

FGM had also sought a declaration that any elections held without its inclusion on every regional ballot would be “null, void, and of no legal effect.”
However, since the judge found nothing unlawful in GECOM’s actions, he ruled there was no need to address that request.
“The application is dismissed in its entirety,” the Chief Justice declared as he threw out FGM’s case.
Friday’s ruling confirms that FGM will not appear on the ballot in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine when voters head to the polls on Monday, while ALP also remains excluded in some regions.
GECOM’s lawyer, Arudranauth Gossai, requested that the court award costs to the respondents, amounting to $1.6 million. Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, sought $2 million in legal costs, arguing that the case was baseless, had no serious grievance, unfairly disrupted preparations for the national elections, and should never have been filed.
In response, Williams argued that costs should not be imposed in a way that discourages individuals from seeking the court’s interpretation and urged that no costs be awarded.
Justice Singh observed that the case was filed at a late stage and granted discretionary costs of $1 million to each respondent, GECOM and the Attorney General, totalling $2 million, with payment due by September 8.
The FGM is made up of three distinct political entities: Forward Guyana (FG), The People’s Movement (TPM), and the Vigilant Political Action Committee (V-PAC).
FG is led by attorney Amanza Walton-Desir, TPM is headed by Apostle Nigel London, while the V-PAC is chaired by businessman Dorwain Bess.
FGM and ALP are among the six political parties contesting Monday’s elections, alongside the incumbent People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Alliance for Change (AFC), and We Invest in Nationhood (WIN).