CJ dismisses challenge to PR electoral system as “baseless”

…slaps Chris Ram; Vishnu Bandhu with $1M costs

Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George has thrown out a legal challenge mounted against Guyana’s Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system, ruling on Tuesday that the application was without merit and failed to establish any constitutional violation in the structure governing national elections.
The challenge was brought by chartered accountant Christopher Ram and Vishnu Bandhu, both of whom had questioned the legality of specific provisions under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), arguing that they infringed on citizens’ constitutional rights to participate in elections. However, the court ruled against both applicants, noting that their claims misinterpreted the Constitution and disregarded the intent and functioning of the PR framework.
In her decision, Chief Justice George underscored that the PR system and ROPA work together cohesively to uphold Guyana’s electoral framework, which has been in place since the country shifted from a first-past-the-post system in 1964. Referencing Article 160 of the Constitution and Section 11 of ROPA, the judge stated that the requirement for parties to contest both the geographical and top-up seats is not unconstitutional, but instead a necessary feature to maintain electoral proportionality. “Section 11C, which is not challenged, clearly establishes that one cannot focus on contesting only geographical constituencies… To do so… would affect the proportionality granted by the system,” she noted in her ruling.
The judge found that the applicants failed to prove that the PR system hindered democratic participation or violated human rights. Instead, she said the system had been carefully structured through constitutional reform and broad-based consultation. In dismissing the application, the Justice George concluded that the arguments were legally flawed and constituted a misuse of the court’s resources. She ordered Bandhu to pay $250,000 each to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the Attorney General (AG), amounting to $500,000 in total. Christopher Ram, on the other hand, was ordered to pay $500,000 in costs to the AG.

“Frivolous”
The AG and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, SC, who represented the State, described the claims as “frivolous” and politically motivated.
Following the ruling, Nandlall provided further insight into the substance of the two applications, breaking down the arguments presented and how the State successfully rebutted them in court. In Ram’s case, he argued that Article 160 of the Constitution provides for an individual candidate, not only party lists, to contest national elections. Ram contended that because ROPA only facilitates a list system, it contradicts Article 160 and is therefore unconstitutional. However, Nandlall refuted this, explaining that Ram’s interpretation was “completely inaccurate.”
“Article 160 entrenches a Proportional Representation system, which by its very character, does not allow for independent candidates,” he said. “There is no single candidate that can run by him or herself under this system. Nowhere in Article 160 or in ROPA does it say that.”
He said the applicants had “plucked words out of the Constitution to suit their political expediency,” and ignored well-established legal interpretations from prior rulings affirming the legitimacy of Guyana’s PR model.
Turning to Bandhu’s case, the AG noted that the politician initially challenged the entire constitutional structure as undemocratic. “Good sense prevailed,” he added, “and that argument was later abandoned.”
Instead, Bandhu focused on Article 147, which guarantees freedom of association, and argued that the law unconstitutionally restricts his political rights by requiring parties to contest a minimum number of seats. Bandhu wished to contest a single seat—a practice not permitted under ROPA. Nandlall emphasised that Article 147 offers no such right to contest elections in any desired format. “He says, ‘not only must I belong to a political party and form one, but I must be allowed to contest elections in a particular way,’” Nandlall explained. “And that is enlarging the language of the Constitution beyond what the drafters intended.”
Bandhu also attempted to invoke international law, referencing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But Nandlall dismissed the argument, warning of the “dangerous road” of using international treaties to override national law.
“If that was allowed, then a Government without a two-thirds majority in Parliament could enter into a treaty and amend the Constitution through the backdoor. That is not permitted under our legal framework,” he said.
Nandlall concluded that both applications lacked substance and were an ill-conceived attempt to derail the country’s electoral preparations.
“These were frivolous and vexatious applications,” he said. “They were dismissed because they were deeply flawed, without legal merit, and they wasted the court’s time.” Responding to whether there was an ulterior motive, Nandlall was candid: “This one was clearly intended to delay the elections. That was the driving factor behind it. But when they saw our submissions, I believe they quickly realised they couldn’t achieve that objective.”
With the cases now struck out and costs imposed, the AG said the outcome reaffirms the stability and constitutionality of Guyana’s electoral system and ensures that no legal cloud lingers over the next elections.