The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Thursday heard arguments in a constitutional appeal that could redefine the scope of electoral rights in Guyana, as attorneys debated whether the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) unlawfully denied thousands of electors the opportunity to vote for the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) during the September 1, 2025 General and Regional Elections.
The appeal, brought by Krystal Hadassah Fisher, an FGM supporter, seeks to overturn rulings by both the High Court and the Guyana Court of Appeal, which held that the dispute could only be pursued through an election petition after the polls.
Representing Fisher, attorney-at-law Dr. Vivian Williams argued that the case is not an election challenge but a constitutional matter concerning the fundamental right to vote.
“The appeal ultimately turns on one question,” Williams told the CCJ. “Where does the law authorise the exclusion of an approved national list from the ballot in some regions and not others?”
He submitted that once a political party has been approved to contest national elections, there must be clear constitutional authority to prevent electors in some regions from voting for that party while allowing electors elsewhere to do so.
“If the law authorises restrictions on the franchise by preventing some electors in some regions from voting for an approved national list available to other electors elsewhere, the source of that authority must be found in the Constitution itself.”
Williams argued that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed by implication or ordinary legislation without explicit constitutional authority. He maintained that neither the Constitution nor the Representation of the Peoples Act (ROPA) authorises such a restriction.
He also challenged the lower courts’ finding that they lacked jurisdiction, arguing that requiring citizens to wait until after an election to challenge an alleged denial of their voting rights renders the constitutional protection of the franchise ineffective.
“Our position… is that if electors are prohibited from approaching the constitutional court before voting to obtain a determination of their right to vote, and instead must wait until after the harm has already occurred, that diminishes the right to vote,” he submitted.
Fisher is asking the CCJ to declare that GECOM’s decision, which resulted in FGM not appearing on the ballot in Regions Seven, Eight and Nine, violated the constitutionally protected franchise of some electors in the affected regions.
Responding on behalf of the State, Attorney General Anil Nandlall S.C denied that GECOM excluded FGM from the ballot. He argued that the party failed to submit candidates’ lists for Regions Seven, Eight and Nine as required by the Representation of the People Act, making it legally impossible for GECOM to include the party in those regional contests.
Nandlall maintained that the electoral process began when the President issued the election proclamation and that political parties had sufficient time to satisfy the statutory nomination requirements. He argued that any challenge to the conduct of the elections must be brought through an election petition.
At the same time ROPA allows for parties/groups to contest the National Elections once they field candidates for at least six regions.
The appeal is widely viewed as one that extends beyond the circumstances of FGM. Its outcome is expected to clarify the extent to which Guyana’s courts may intervene to protect constitutional voting rights before an election is held, or whether citizens alleging a denial of their franchise must always await the outcome of the polls before seeking judicial relief through an election petition.
