Guyana’s High Court has upheld the legality of the country’s proportional representation (PR) electoral system, ruling it does not violate the Constitution. The decision came Tuesday from Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, S.C., who dismissed two constitutional challenges brought separately by attorney-at-law and chartered accountant Christopher Ram, and Vishnu Bandhu, leader of the United Republican Party.
The challenges questioned whether Guyana’s electoral laws, particularly the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), infringe on individual or party rights to contest elections freely. However, the court found that the PR-based framework is part of a constitutionally coherent and democratically sound electoral structure.
“The Constitution and ROPA work in tandem,” Justice George emphasized in her ruling. “This system is part of a carefully calibrated representational framework.”
She noted that Section 11C of ROPA, which was not itself challenged, clearly outlines that parties must contest both geographic and national top-up seats. “To do otherwise,” she said, “would undermine the proportionality guaranteed by the system.”
Ram had argued that Article 160 of the Constitution allows for individual candidacies outside party lists, and that current legislation, by requiring party affiliation, violates this right. But Attorney General Anil Nandlall, S.C., representing the State, disagreed, asserting that Article 160 establishes a proportional representation system that inherently excludes independent candidates.
“Proportional representation, by design, does not accommodate unaffiliated individuals,” Nandlall argued. The court agreed, ruling that the Constitution envisions a party-based system and does not mandate space for individual contenders outside of it.
In the second challenge, Bandhu claimed ROPA violated his rights under Article 147 by forcing him to contest both geographic and top-up seats, even though he wished to run only in one region. But the Chief Justice found that freedom of association does not equate to a right to define the terms of one’s electoral participation.
Bandhu also pointed to international conventions signed by Guyana, suggesting they provide broader political rights. However, the court rejected this, stating such treaties cannot override local constitutional arrangements unless specifically incorporated into domestic law.
Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. ultimately found both claims “without merit” and imposed costs on the applicants. Ram was ordered to pay $500,000 to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), while Bandhu must pay $250,000 to GECOM and $250,000 to the Attorney General’s Chambers.
