Leader of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and incoming parliamentarian Amanza Walton-Desir has voiced strong criticism of the judiciary’s decision to impose heavy legal costs on her party following its failed legal challenge against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). Her remarks come in the wake of the Guyana Court of Appeal’s recent dismissal of FGM’s case, which sought clarification over the party’s exclusion from the ballots in Regions 7, 8 and 9 during the 2025 general elections.
Speaking recently on the programme Sources, hosted by journalist Svetlana Marshall, Walton-Desir addressed what she described as a troubling precedent in applying costs to litigants pursuing matters of public interest. The case originated when a candidate from FGM challenged GECOM’s decision to omit the party from certain regional ballots due to its failure to submit candidate lists in those areas. The High Court dismissed the case on August 29, 2025, ruling that the exclusion was lawful under Article 160 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act. The court awarded costs of G$1 million each to GECOM and the Attorney General.
FGM appealed, but on October 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision and imposed an additional G$1 million in costs to each respondent, making the total financial penalty G$4 million. The appellate court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, finding the challenge amounted to a questioning of the election process, which must be addressed via an election petition under Article 163 of the Constitution.
Walton-Desir expressed concern about the chilling effect such cost orders could have on public access to justice. Referring to the Caribbean Court of Justice’s ruling in Attorney General v. Christopher Jones, she argued that when citizens bring matters that seek judicial clarification, they are performing a public service and should not be penalised.
“We are aware that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has said that in the Attorney General versus Christopher Jones that when members of the public come with matters that allow the Court the opportunity to explain and to clarify, they’re doing a public service and so should not be penalised by exorbitant costs,” Walton-Desir told Marshall. “So what the court did is that they vacated the order for cost made by the lower court and said each party will bear their own legal costs. So the effect of the current ruling is chilling, and the message that’s being sent is that you do not dare question us or else you’ll have to pay.”
She added: “By doing that, the court is saying access to justice belongs to the rich. What it is saying is that the minibus conductor, the minibus driver, the nurse, the teacher, the painter, the doctor, or home care aide better be very sure that they have a few million dollars before they think about approaching a court. That could not be what the architects of our Constitution and our legal system intended.”
Describing the case as one of legitimate public interest, Walton-Desir questioned why GECOM’s own guidance material, which indicated that the FGM had met minimum criteria, was not sufficient to warrant judicial clarification.
“This is not a private matter,” she said. “This is a citizen who comes into the court to say: GECOM said this in its own guidance material. So why is it that all of the parties having met the minimum requirements, and your own publication suggests that they do, what is so wrong with that question? There’s nothing wrong with that question.”
She concluded by stating that FGM would explore further legal options and is preparing to take the matter to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
“We look forward to going to the next level, [the CCJ], because I believe that there is serious merit there,” she said.
Veteran trade unionist and General Secretary of the Guyana Trades Union Congress, Lincoln Lewis, also weighed in on the matter, describing the court’s cost imposition as a dangerous erosion of democratic rights. Lewis sharply criticised the judiciary’s approach, warning that “when the courts become a place where citizens are punished for daring to question the law, democracy itself is under siege.” (Village Voice News)
The case has ignited debate over the role of courts in public interest litigation and the financial burdens faced by ordinary citizens seeking legal recourse.
