A new election petition filed in the High Court is challenging the validity of Guyana’s September 1, 2025, General and Regional Elections, claiming the country’s electoral laws and their enforcement by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) violated citizens’ constitutional right to participate—freely, fairly, and fully—at any and every level of the electoral process across the country.
Filed on October 14 by Randolph Julian Critchlow of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), the petition argues that the electoral framework systematically disenfranchised thousands of electors, particularly in Amerindian-majority hinterland regions, by excluding certain parties from regional ballots. The case, brought by attorney Dr. Vivian M. Williams, names GECOM, the Chief Election Officer, and the Attorney General as respondents and seeks to nullify the election results and trigger new, constitutionally compliant elections.
Guyana’s electoral process comprises three essential components: a vote for the President, a vote for the 65-member National Assembly—which includes 25 geographic constituency seats and 40 national top-up seats—and a vote for Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs). The petition asserts that voters in several regions were denied meaningful participation in all three components due to the disqualification of their preferred parties from local ballots.
Specifically, the petition highlights the exclusion of FGM from contesting in Regions 7, 8, and 9, and the Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) from Regions 1, 2, 8, and 9. As a result, approximately 120,000 voters—roughly 9% of the national electorate—were unable to vote for these parties in their respective regions. In the case of FGM, the party received no votes in the excluded regions, not due to lack of support, the petition claims, but because it was not listed on the ballot.
The legal challenge focuses on Sections 11, 11A, and 11B of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), which require parties to meet certain thresholds—such as contesting a minimum number of constituencies—to qualify for the national ballot. The petition contends that these provisions, when applied uniformly across a country with significant geographic and demographic disparities, impose disproportionate and unconstitutional burdens on smaller or regionally focused parties, particularly in remote areas.
Citing multiple constitutional provisions, the petition argues that the current system violates:
- Articles 59 and 159, which guarantee the right of every citizen over 18 to vote—without unreasonable restriction or exclusion;
- Article 160, which provides for a system of proportional representation through votes cast “throughout Guyana,” ensuring all citizens can vote for national party lists regardless of region;
- Article 149(2), which prohibits discrimination, including on indirect grounds such as geography or ethnicity;
- Articles 1, 9, and 13, which affirm Guyana’s identity as a sovereign, democratic state in which all power resides in the people, who must have the opportunity to participate in decision-making at all levels.
A key theme running through the petition is GECOM’s constitutional responsibility to safeguard these rights. The petitioner argues that GECOM failed in this duty by enforcing electoral rules that do not take into account the demographic and geographic realities of the hinterland—resulting in the exclusion of legitimate political voices and denying citizens their full electoral franchise.
For instance, regions such as Region 8, the per capita burden to meet candidate signature requirements is up to 35 times higher than in coastal Region 4. According to the petition, this data supports the claim of systemic discrimination against voters in sparsely populated, largely Amerindian regions.
This petition follows an earlier legal challenge, Fisher v. GECOM, which was dismissed before the election for being improperly filed. In contrast, the current petition is presented as a post-election challenge under Article 163 of the Constitution, directly addressing the procedural deficiency that led to the earlier case’s dismissal. It also introduces new expert evidence, aiming to demonstrate that the exclusion of parties was not voluntary, but imposed by structural inequalities in the electoral framework.
The legal challenge comes on the heels of a dramatic political shift in the 2025 elections. The governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), led by President Irfaan Ali, expanded its majority from 33 to 36 seats. The newly formed We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party surged into second place with 16 seats, while the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) coalition dropped to 12. FGM, despite being excluded from three regions, won 4,326 votes nationally (0.99%) and secured a seat through the national top-up list. In the regions where it was excluded, it recorded zero votes—underscoring the effects of the contested rules.
The case demands more than a procedural response—it calls for a serious examination of whether the electoral process serves the democratic foundation it is meant to protect. At issue is not only the legality of the current framework but whether it fulfills the Constitution’s promise of equal and meaningful participation for all citizens, in every part of the country, at every level of governance.
Whether the petition succeeds or fails, it raises weighty constitutional questions about fairness, inclusion, and the integrity of Guyana’s electoral system. At its core is the argument that all citizens—regardless of geography, race, or political affiliation—must be guaranteed the right to participate at any and every level of the electoral process. The petition suggests that anything less falls short of the democratic principles enshrined in Guyana’s Constitution.
