FGM case against GECOM frivolous, has no merit – AG Nandlall

…says legal challenge a clamour for attention, shameless publicity stunt

Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, SC is confident that the High Court will dismiss the case filed by the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) party against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) as the matter is set to be heard on Monday. FGM, led by former A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP) Amanza Walton-Desir, is accusing GECOM of excluding duly approved political parties from ballots in several hinterland regions ahead of the September 1 General and Regional Elections.
The case has been fixed for hearing before acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, at 09:00h on Monday. However, AG Anil Nandlall believes that this case is frivolous and vexing. “The case has absolutely no merit. It has no likelihood of success and would amount to a colossal waste of the court’s time. And hopefully, at the end of the matter, the court would express its displeasure of its process being so abused,” he posited during a recent interview on the National Communications Network (NCN). In the fixed-date application filed by Attorney Dr Vivian Williams, FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah is seeking urgent constitutional relief under Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The party argues that GECOM’s ballot design violates Articles 59, 149, and 160 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA).

According to the affidavit, both FGM and the Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) party, the latter founded by former People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) member, Simona Broomes, were approved by GECOM to contest the upcoming polls. However, their names were not found on the ballots in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine, nor ALP in Regions One and Two. The parties claimed that they satisfied all legal requirements to contest nationally.
Hadassah, a resident of Region Nine, claims that the exclusion of the party from the regional ballot in that district violates citizens’ constitutional right to vote.
But the Attorney General argued that no right is absolute. “While you have a right to vote, it’s not an absolute right to vote. Every right has qualifications and restrictions. So, you have a right to vote but you must be registered. You have a right to vote for a political party of your choice, of course, but that party must be contesting the elections,” he contended.
Nandlall reminded of similar legal proceedings filed by Christopher Ram and Vishnu Bandhu, both of whom in separate cases challenged the electoral system of Guyana, specifically the proportional representation system on the ground that it discriminates against persons. One argument was that there is no place for an individual to independently contest the elections since they are required to be part of a list that is pre-approved by GECOM, hence their right as a Guyanese to participate in the electoral process is taken away.
The other argument was that the law mandates political parties to contest a minimum number of seats (13 of 25 geographical seats) and minimum number of regions (six of the 10 regions) before they are allowed to enter the race, which interferes with their constitutional rights.
According to Nandlall, the court could not find in any violations of constitutional rights by the electoral laws in either case – and the same will apply to FGM’s legal challenge.
“So, this elector is from Region #9 and she claims that she would like to vote for this Forward [Guyana] Movement party, and when she looks at the ballot, the Forward [Guyana] Movement party is not on the ballot and she claims that her rights are infringed. How is her right infringed? She has decided that she will vote for a person or a party that is not contesting that election… I always tell people that the law is extraordinarily simple and based upon common sense,” he stated.
The AG went on to say that the FGM’s case is a clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of the Guyana Constitution and the electoral machinery.
“I think this case is a clamour for attention and it’s a shameless stunt for publicity. Maybe the presidential candidate of this party will change her mind after the decision of the court but if it is that there is a desire to appeal that’s all right and everyone is entitled to pursue his or her rights to the very end,” the AG contended.
Meanwhile, the FGM court challenge is being seen as a last-minute bid to delay the upcoming elections – something which AG Nandlall reassured would not happen.
He declared, “I just want to assure the general public that the exercise of that right to appeal will not affect the September 1st elections. Those elections are going to go ahead.”
Citing the case’s flagrant lack of merit, Nandlall argued that the court should impose appropriate costs, especially since “…a tremendous amount of resources, time and energy have to be expended at this crucial time, days before the elections, with a hopeless legal challenge. And litigants, who invoke the processes of the court at such an unfortunate time and who would cause the use or rather wastage of such a massive amount of resources, should feel the wrath of the court. And the court has an obligation, in my view, to express its discontent with actions that are so patently frivolous and vexing.”
Only Thursday, General Secretary (GS) of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Dr Bharrat Jagdeo labelled the court challenge as “nonsensical.”