The Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) political party on Saturday filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals to challenge Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh’s Friday ruling which dismissed FGM’s case against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for omitting the party from ballot papers in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine due to its failure to submit Geographical Constituency Lists of Candidates in those regions.
The application is calling for the overturning of the “whole decision and order of the High Court delivered on 29th August, 2025” citing that the Judge erred in ruling that the placing of the party on the ballot paper would “defeat the constitutional objective of inclusivity and representation of smaller or distant communities”, and that the omission of parties in constituencies where they have no Lists of Candidates is lawful.
The application included a total of nine grounds of appeal including the awarding of $1 million in costs each to GECOM and the Attorney General (AG). The applicant is calling on the court to rule that the omission of parties is unlawful, unconstitutional and in breach of Articles 13, 59, 149 and 160 of the Constitution. The applicant is also calling on the Court of Appeals to declare any election held without the inclusion is unconstitutional, null and void, as it denies the applicant’s right to ballot access and to contest free and fair elections. Guyana is set to go to the polls for the General and Regional Elections on Monday, September 1.
The applicant in the case is FGM Region Nine candidate, Krystal Hadassah Fisher. Fisher is being represented by Attorney Vivian Williams. GECOM was represented by Attorney Arundranauth Gossai, while AG Anil Nandlall was granted leave to join the proceedings.
FGM Leader Amanza Walton-Desir
Following presentations by the Attorneys on Tuesday and Wednesday, on Friday Justice Singh ruled that the applicant had put forth no evidence to support her challenge that the practice violates her rights under Article 13, and 149 of the Constitution.
The Judge noted that the applicant has not built out a case for discrimination, describing the applicant’s assertion as “malicious”.
“The applicant’s argument that GECOM is discriminating against voters from particular regions is malicious in that no evidence has been provided to show that GECOM has in any way limited or restricted the participation of any party in the upcoming elections. The applicant has not shown in any way that GECOM unlawfully determined which party appears or not appears on the ballot paper of any geographical constituency,” the Judge said. The Judge ruled that Guyana’s electoral system was deliberately set up to favour participation of persons from disadvantaged regions. According to the Judge, the provisions of both the Constitution and the Representation of the People’s Act (ROPA) are set up to ensure that political parties source their candidates from within the region/geographical constituency from which they want the voters to vote for them, allowing for voters within respective regions to select Parliamentarian representation that comes directly from their Region. In Guyana’s electoral system in order to qualify to contest in the General Elections, and vie for seats in the National Assembly, a political party must submit a National Top Up List of Candidates, as well as Geographical Constituency Lists of Candidates to contest in at least six of the geographical constituencies. In the 65 seat National Assembly 25 of the seats are awarded based on results in the votes in geographical constituencies while 40 of the seats are awarded based on the results of the popular vote.
“The system is essentially a compensatory proportional representation system. As such, parties not fielding a Geographical List of Candidates from any respective geographical constituency defeats the aim of diverse representation that provisions in Guyana’s Constitution attempts to create,” the judge noted.
“Logically, placing a party on a geographical constituency list, despite the fact that they are not fielding candidates in that constituency would defeat what the system is built to achieve, which is inclusivity and a voice for distant, smaller communities.”
