By Mark DaCosta- In a recent analysis by Lincoln Lewis, the seasoned trade unionist and staunch advocate for workers’ rights, pressing concerns were raised regarding a recent court ruling he argues jeopardises the very foundations of democracy. The bitter pill of this judicial decision comes in the wake of the acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh’s August 29, 2025 dismissal of the Forward Guyana Movement’s (FGM) legal challenge against their exclusion from the election ballots in various regions.
Lewis articulates that the core of the issue rests on a constitutional interpretation that significantly affects the FGM, a relatively new political entity. The FGM found itself embroiled in a legal battle when they were barred from appearing on the ballot due to a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral law. The crux of the dispute lies in the fact that the FGM had not submitted a full list of candidates for all ten geographic constituencies. Despite this, they insisted that their party name should be represented on every ballot across the nation, irrespective of their active candidacy in specific districts. This claim was met with swift rebuttals from people allegedly aligned with the People’s Progressive Party (PPP)
In his analysis, Lincoln Lewis stressed the gravity of the situation, stating, “When the courts become a place where citizens are punished for daring to question the law, democracy itself is under siege.” He posits that the FGM, led by Amanza Walton-Desir, sought clarity and fairness — a sentiment integral to any democratic society. However, instead of facilitating this quest for justice, the court’s contribution felt punitive, as it dismissed the case and levied a substantial $2 million cost on the FGM.
The timeline of events reveals the overwhelming urgency in which the FGM acted. With only days before the elections on September 1, they filed their application on August 20, sought immediate legal clarity, and had their case heard a mere week later, on August 27, yielding a ruling by August 29. Underlining the situation, Lewis notes, “The ruling reads not as an interpretation of constitutional law but as a message that says do not dare question the status quo.” This raises profound questions about the courts’ role in safeguarding citizens’ rights versus upholding the established order.
In the context of this legal battle, the Chief Justice ruled decisively in favour of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), reinforcing the notion that it would be unlawful to include FGM on the ballot in regions without their submitted candidate lists. As a result, the FGM found itself excluded from elections in Regions 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9. Lewis laments, “When a judge seems more concerned with defending the efficiency of an agency like GECOM than ensuring the right to be heard, something has gone terribly wrong.” This ruling not only affirmed the legal framework but also presented a stark and disheartening view of legal recourse in our nation.
This troubling scenario is exacerbated by Lewis’ assertion that, “This is suppression.” His analysis encourages citizens to reflect critically on whether the judiciary upholds justice or quashes dissent, posing the question, “Is it protecting the Constitution or defending power?” In a nation already wary of creeping authoritarianism, the court’s actions appear to serve more as a bulwark for those in authority than as a shield for the populace.
If the FGM chooses to appeal the ruling to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Lewis intriguingly poses whether the acting Chief Justice would embrace a potential reversal with the same vigour with which he issued his original verdict. “History will remember whether you chose to be an interpreter of law or an enforcer of silence,” he warns, reminding us all of the delicate balance between law and power in our society.
Lincoln Lewis concludes his analysis with a poignant call to action, urging the people of our nation to remain vigilant and aware of the precarious state of their democracy. “For democracy dies not only with a gun but also with a gavel when the hand that swings it forgets who it was meant to protect,” he cautions. The ordeal faced by the FGM is not just a singular incident but a broader reflection of the challenges that lie ahead for all citizens seeking to assert their rights against an entrenched political establishment.
The question now looms larger than ever: what happens to justice when the judiciary fails to serve the very people it is meant to protect? Lincoln Lewis’s analysis serves as a clarion call for awareness and action as we navigate these murky waters in our pursuit of democracy.
