By Mark DaCosta- Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh has dismissed a legal challenge from the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) regarding their exclusion from the electoral ballot, upholding the actions of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The ruling, delivered in the High Court, asserts that the FGM and other parties voluntarily opted out of contesting in crucial regions for the upcoming elections, hence their omission from the ballot is legally justified.
The legal confrontation arose as the FGM sought to challenge their exclusion from Regions 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9, questioning the legality of GECOM’s decisions. Their argument was centred around the claim that the failure to include them deprived voters of their constitutional right to choose their preferred political representatives. However, Justice Singh firmly countered this assertion, noting that it was not GECOM that excluded these parties, but rather the parties’ own decision not to contest in those regions, making their inclusion impossible.
The ruling, handed down on a Friday, follows the party’s contention that GECOM acted unconstitutionally in not listing them among the candidates for the national vote. The case was spearheaded by FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher, who argued fervently that her constitutional rights were infringed upon by GECOM’s actions. She maintained that voters in her region should have the right to select a party that meets eligibility requirements, irrespective of local contestation. Unfortunately for the FGM, the court found no merit to these claims and dismissed the petition in its entirety.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Singh emphasised the necessity under Guyana’s electoral laws for parties to submit candidate lists for each region they wish to contest. He clarified that neither the FGM nor the Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) had put forward lists for the regions in dispute, making it illegal for GECOM to include them on the ballot. The court firmly stated, “You cannot tell voters in Region Seven that they can vote for a party which, by its own lawful choice, opted out of that region.”
GECOM’s representation, led by legal counsel Arudranauth Gossai, reinforced the commission’s adherence to the Representation of the People Act, highlighting that the laws were followed meticulously in the electoral processes. Following the verdict, Attorney General Anil Nandlall termed the challenge as “frivolous” and lacking substance, emphasising that the case had unjustly delayed preparations for the national elections, set for September 1.
The court awarded costs totalling $2 million, a decision that the FGM’s attorney Dr Vivian Williams argued against, warning that punitive financial measures could deter individuals from seeking judicial intervention in future cases. However, Justice Singh concluded that the late timing of the filed application had wasted valuable court resources, justifying the awarded costs.
This ruling paves the way for the elections to proceed as scheduled, thereby reaffirming the established practices of GECOM, which now directs that only those parties that submitted the requisite nominations will be included on the ballots across all regions.
The implications of this ruling reverberate throughout our nation’s political landscape. While the FGM views their exclusion as a critical affront to democratic representation — raising significant concerns about electoral fairness, particularly for Indigenous populations — the court’s decision solidifies the current electoral regulations as upheld by the ruling party.
As citizens prepare for the imminent elections, there remains a palpable tension surrounding the legitimacy of electoral processes and the representation of diverse voices in our governance. This case underscores the ongoing struggle for equitable political representation and the complexities that arise within an evolving electoral landscape marked by regional disparities. For many, this ruling is a stark reminder of the need to vigilantly safeguard the principles of democracy that our nation holds dear.
This publication was informed the applicant s likely to file an appeal.
