–Nandlall blasts ‘defective’ elections challenge after court strikes out petition
THE Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has strongly criticised the legal team representing the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) party after yet another failed bid to challenge the September 1, 2025, General and Regional Elections.
Speaking in detail about the matter during a recent airing of the ‘Issue in the News’ programme, Nandlall explained that what was presented to the High Court as an election petition filed on October 14, 2025, by Randolph Critchlow was fundamentally defective and in breach of the statutory framework governing elections challenges.
He recalled that the party had previously attempted to halt the electoral process before polling day through a separate action brought in the name of Krystal Fisher against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the Attorney General.
That claim, filed on August 20, 2025, was dismissed by the Chief Justice and later by the Court of Appeal. The matter is now pending before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), where an appeal has been lodged and is awaiting a hearing date.
In the Fisher appeal, the Court of Appeal awarded $1 million in costs to each respondent, the Attorney General, the Chief Elections Officer, and GECOM. According to Nandlall, those costs remain unpaid and steps will be taken to recover them.
One of the central findings of the Court of Appeal was that the wrong procedure had been used to challenge the elections, he said, adding that the court held that any challenge to the validity of elections must be brought strictly by way of an elections petition, not through ordinary court proceedings.
“Now, one of the grounds upon which the case was dismissed by the Guyana Court of Appeal, based upon an objection I took, was that he had invoked the law the wrong procedure in attempting to challenge the elections.”
Despite appealing that very decision in the CCJ, counsel for FGM then returned to the High Court and filed what was purported to be an election petition. Nandlall described this as “complete and utter incompetence from top to bottom,” arguing that the legal team was simultaneously appealing the Court of Appeal’s guidance, while seeking to rely on it by filing a petition in the manner the court had outlined.
Once the new petition was filed, Nandlall said he immediately moved to strike it out on multiple procedural and substantive grounds. He stressed that election petitions are governed by a “specialised jurisdiction” under a strict statutory code, in particular the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.
This code, he noted, sets out in detail how and when an election may be challenged, on what grounds, against whom, and following which procedural steps. Jurisprudence spanning more than two centuries, he added, makes clear that any breach of these rules is “fatal” and will result in dismissal of the petition.
According to the Attorney General, the petition filed on behalf of Critchlow was “riddled with deficiencies.”
He drew parallels with the PNC’s challenges to the 2020 elections, reminding viewers that both of those petitions had been dismissed within weeks, and that the dismissals had been upheld all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice. Those outcomes, he said, demonstrated that the courts in the Region have been consistent in insisting on strict adherence to the procedural code for election petitions.
When the Critchlow petition returned to court, counsel for the petitioner reportedly attempted to withdraw the matter. However, Nandlall said that even the application to withdraw was itself procedurally defective. He told the court that the document filed to effect the withdrawal, did not comply with the technical requirements of the law, and he proceeded to outline what he described as “various deficiencies” in that application as well.
As a result, the Attorney General argued that the petitioner had failed at every stage: failing to seek the court’s permission correctly, filing the wrong type of document, naming the wrong parties, and then attempting to withdraw the petition in an improper manner.
Guyana’s Chief Justice, Justice Navindra Singh, upheld Nandlall’s application, struck out the petition and ordered costs of $350,000 in favour of each of the three respondents: GECOM, the Chief Elections Officer and the Attorney General.
Meanwhile, the earlier appeal in the Fisher matter remains pending before the CCJ.
Nandlall expressed confidence that the regional court would also dismiss that case, calling the appeal “hopeless.”
