FGM vs GECOM: FGM has only itself to blame for ballot exclusion – GECOM lawyer argue

…case continues today

Attorney General Anil Nandlall argued that the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) failed to identify any constitutional violation, noting that voters can only cast ballots for parties that qualify to appear on the ballot, while GECOM’s attorney, Arudranauth Gossai, added that it is the responsibility of each political party to submit candidate lists in the geographical constituencies where they wish to be included.

The attorneys put forth their arguments on Tuesday as the FGM case against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) continued before acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh. The case is set to continue today with attorney for the applicant, Vivian Williams set to reply to the arguments from Gossai and Attorney General, Anil Nandalall.
Gossai dismissed it as bizarre that FGM is arguing that the party’s exclusion from the ballot in regions where it did not field a geographical constituency list.
“If you choose not to field a list of candidates for a geographical constituency, how do u blame GECOM for that?” Gossai argued.
The case has been filed by Region Nine resident FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher, who is challenging that FGM’s exclusion from the ballot in her region violates her constitutional right to vote for a party of her choice. Fisher is represented by United States (US)-based attorney, Vivian Williams.
“If [parties] don’t submit a list for a geographical constituency, [they] are telling GECOM: I am not contesting in that geographical constituency. [Parties] have to submit a list in all the geographical constituencies that you are desirous of contesting…. Somehow [the applicant] miraculously was anticipating that FGM would appear on the list? This is not a Cinderella story,” Gossai reasoned.
With just days before the September 1 General and Regional Elections (GRE), FGM has challenged the party’s exclusion from ballots in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine, areas where the party did not submit geographical constituency lists. Gossai argued that it is not GECOM, but FGM that has disenfranchised the voters from their ability to vote for that party.
“It’s not GECOM that excludes you, you excluded yourself,” Gossai reasoned.
“The parties have to canvas those constituencies. They [FGM] decided we are not going to canvas in that region but want GECOM to put them on the ballot. Your party chose not to canvas in your region, how is that GECOM’s problem? They want GECOM to facilitate them even though it would be in breach of the legislation.”
Gossai asked that the case be dismissed with substantial costs. Gossai noted that notwithstanding GECOM having posted the list of candidates since July, the applicant waited until days before the September 1 elections to file her grievance with the court. Nandalall is also asking the court to award substantial costs against the applicant.
Nandalall in his arguments highlighted that any citizen’s right to vote, while protected under the Constitution, is not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of electoral laws.
“You decided not to participate and then said that the system is depriving you. They have not submitted a list to qualify for Region Nine but want to come here and qualify for a seat in the National Assembly? An election is a process that has rules if u don’t comply with the rules you cannot contest the elections,” Nandlall said.
According to Nandlall, the Constitution guarantees the voter only the right to vote for those who are contesting, and in this instance, FGM did not submit a geographical constituency list for Region Nine, thereby making itself ineligible to appear on the ballot in that region.
According to the attorney general, it is therefore inaccurate for the applicant to claim that she has been deprived of her constitutional right to vote for a party of her choice. The exclusion of FGM from the ballot in Region Nine, the AG argued is a direct result of the party’s own failure to comply with the rules outlined under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA).
“Nobody is depriving the applicant of her right to vote. The problem is she wants to vote for a particular list that is not available in that region. There are lists available for the voter to exercise their franchise and that is what the constitution allows,” Nandlall said.
Nandlall likened the situation to the analogy of a person wanting to place a bet on a horse that isn’t running in a race, arguing that no voter can demand to vote for a list that was never submitted. He stressed that there are other lists available on the ballot in Region Nine, and voters remain free to exercise their franchise among the contesting parties. The Attorney General also rejected the narrative that GECOM’s actions amount to discrimination, instead pointing to FGM’s deliberate decision not to contest in Region Nine.
At the core of the arguments of both sides are the interpretations of articles contained in Guyana’s Constitution and the Representation of the People’s Act (ROPA).
From the Constitution sections at the heart of the arguments include Articles 59, which enshrines a Guyanese citizen’s right to vote, Article 159, which places places conditions and limitations on eligibility on a citizen’s right to vote, Article 160, which outlines that voters cast their votes for a list of candidates and not individuals. Sections 39, and Section 11 of the Representation of the People’s Act we also cited.
Nandlall posited that the applicant’s Attorney has not made out a case citing how any constitutional rights are being violated.
“[Williams] has not yet shown that ROPA is in challenge of the constitution. The right to vote is a constitutional entitlement subject to the constitution itself… no constitutional violation has been identified,” Nandlall said.
Meanwhile, Williams, put forth that the right to vote is a fundamental, universal right that cannot be altered. According to Williams, omitting political parties from the ballot of regions where they did not submit a geographical constituency list of candidates creates an uneven, and discriminatory system that disenfranchises residents in the regions where the omitted party does not appear.
According to Williams, excluding certain political parties creates “basic” and “premium” options for voters in different parts of the country.
“If the court were to accept the interpretation of the constitution and the practice GECOM seeks. it will turn [hinterland] citizens into second class citizens than those of us who sit in the centre of the country,’ Williams said.
However, Gossai argued that it was FGM – and not GECOM – that created the “basic” vs “premium” options when that party deliberately chose not to contest in particular geographical constituencies.
“If you don’t subscribe to the premium package how is that GECOM’s problem?” Gossai commented.
GECOM has approved six political parties to contest the September 1 elections: A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), Alliance for Change (AFC), Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP), Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), and We Invest in Nationhood (WIN). FGM, headed by former APNU Member of Parliament, Amanza Walton-Desir, is one of two contesting parties that did not submit Geographical Constituency Lists to contest all 10 regions. The ALP party was approved by GECOM but did not field constituency candidates in Regions One and Two, and are not on the ballot for those regions.