AG Chambers preparing application to strike out FGM’s election petition – Nandlall

Despite losing its case against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) in two local courts and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) over the party’s exclusion from the national ballot, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) is now contesting the legitimacy of the 2025 General and Regional Elections through an election petition – a move Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall is confident will fail.

“The Attorney General’s [Chamber] is already preparing an application to strike it out,” Nandlall declared on Tuesday evening during his weekly programme, “Issues in the News”.
Prior to the September 1 elections, FGM – a party founded by former APNU Member of Parliament Amanza Walton-Desir – filed legal proceedings against GECOM after the party was excluded from the ballot in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine – regions where the party did not submit the required lists of candidates to contest. FGM was only approved by GECOM to contest seven of the 10 regions.
In his August 29 ruling, acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh noted that GECOM’s decision to exclude the party from the ballots in the three regions was consistent with constitutional principles that ensure the ballot access reflects parties contesting within specific constituencies. In dismissing the case, the Chief Justice said the applicant, Crystal Fisher, failed to prove her claims of discrimination, describing the assertion as “malicious”.
This decision was then appealed at the Court of Appeal, where it was unanimously rejected.
Acting Chancellor Justice Roxane George declared in her October 10 decision that the case had no merit, reiterating that GECOM acted lawfully in excluding the party from the ballot in the three regions. Moreover, the Chief Justice noted that the case was improperly before the court; that is, it did not arise from an election petition, and as such, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
Dissatisfied with the Appeal Court’s judgement, the FGM went to the CCJ – Guyana’s final appellate court. However, the party did not follow the required procedures, that is, obtaining leave from the Appeal Court in order to file an appeal with the regional court. Consequently, the CCJ also rejected FGM’s appeal.
Nandlall bemoaned the party’s lack of knowledge of the basic procedural requirements despite having a leader who is also a lawyer.
“The Caribbean Court of Justice rightfully rejected their attempts at filing an appeal. So, they are back at the Guyana Court of Appeal, seeking leave to appeal a decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice. While that application for leave is pending and not being satisfied with the series of adverse rulings they have received, they now file what they are describing as an elections petition,” the AG stated.
Filed in the High Court on October 14 in the name of Randolph Critchlow, the election petition challenges the validity of the September 1 elections, claiming that Guyana’s electoral laws and GECOM’s enforcement of those laws violated citizens’ constitutional right to participate freely, fairly, and fully at any and every level of the electoral process across the country.
But according to Nandlall, even this petition is non-compliant with the rules and procedures of preparing and filing an election petition, which allow no room for errors.
“The rules and procedures governing election petitions are of a unique type… They are called sui generis… If there is any flaw, either in the form of the petition or in its substance or in its procedure, that flaw is fatal. It’s not like an ordinary case where a flaw or a deficiency can be corrected. In election petitions, any rule of procedure that is breached or any deficiency in relation to form is normally fatal, and the petition will be dismissed,” he stressed.
The AG explained that an election petition questions an election, the formation of a Government, and the composition of the Parliament, adding that this type of litigation does not permit mediocrity, mistakes, or errors, whether genuine or not.
“Well, this thing that they filed, that they’re calling an election petition, is not an election petition. When you look at what an election petition looks like, it is not this. They just titled it an election petition and think that is an election petition. And they have violated almost every rule and every procedural requirement surrounding the preparation and filing of an election petition.”
“There are many rules governing how this has to be done. All of them have been violated. And the court will now have to deal with another colossal abuse of its process. The parties who ought to have been named by law are not even named… What I’m saying is that this petition is hopelessly misconceived and woefully deficient. One can predict with almost virtual certainty that it will be dismissed,” the AG posited.
Citing what he described as a colossal abuse of the process, Nandlall indicated that when this matter is thrown out by the court, he will not only file an application for costs from the litigant but also from the lawyer leading the case. (G8)