Home News FGM vs GECOM: High Court set to rule quickly on if party...
Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh has assured a swift ruling in the constitutional case brought by the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), with all parties expected to complete their legal arguments before the High Court by the end of the day on Tuesday.
Chief Justice (acting) Singh, presiding over the case, emphasised his intention to resolve the matter quickly. “We will finish this matter this week, I assure you,” the judge declared during Monday’s hearing, noting his availability at any time to facilitate the proceedings. Justice Singh noted that he would not be imposing time constraints on Tuesday’s presentations, saying, “This case is so narrow, I won’t constrain anyone. I will give everyone a free rein tomorrow.”
Filed by Region Nine resident and FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher, the challenge is to the exclusion of political parties from ballots in regions where they have not submitted geographical constituency lists. The Fixed Date Application (FDA) contends that this practice violates citizens’ constitutional right to vote for a party of their choice. Under Guyana’s electoral system, the 65 seats in the National Assembly are distributed with 40 filled based on votes from a National Top-Up List and 25 allocated through geographical constituency representation. Political parties must submit both a National Top Up List and respective Geographical Constituency Lists to contest the elections, however parties only need to submit a minimum of six of the 10 constituencies in order to be approved to contest the elections.
Though the court was prepared to hear arguments on Monday, Fisher’s attorney, the United States (US)-based Vivian Williams, requested a one-day adjournment to adequately review filings submitted by GECOM the night before. Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, who was granted leave to join the proceedings, raised no objections along with GECOM’s lawyers. GECOM is being represented by Attorney Arudranauth Gossai, while AG Anil Nandlall applied and was permitted to be a party to the case. “I had an application to join the proceedings because unfortunately, though I should have been named as Attorney General, I was not named. When you claim constitutional reliefs against the state, the Attorney General by law must be named.
They didn’t name me, but we made an application to join and neither GECOM nor the applicant objected to the Attorney General formally partaking,” Nandalall explained. The legal challenge, which has drawn national attention, revolves around GECOM’s exclusion of FGM from ballots in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine, areas where the party did not submit geographical constituency lists. The party, however, met the legal threshold by contesting in seven of the 10 regions, one more than the minimum of six regions required under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA). Fisher contends that the exclusion of her party in Region Nine has deprived her and others like her of the right to vote for the political party of their choice. 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.
Legal interpretation
AG Nandlall, who opted not to file an affidavit of defence, told reporters the case rests entirely on legal interpretation. He said “it’s not a question of evidence” but a question of persuading the court of GECOM’s understanding of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act (ROPA).
“This case is purely a matter of law. It is what the Constitution lays down, it is what ROPA says, and it all depends upon how we interpret what is there, having regard for the electoral system,” he said. “In Guyana’s case, there are 10 geographic constituencies in which the election is being contested and you are to feed a list in each of those geographic constituents. There is a minimum number of geographic constituencies that you are required to contest election in in order to qualify to contest the elections, but in addition to that and more fundamentally, the list that you are supporting must be contesting the election in the geographic constituency in which you are located, or else you will not be able to cast your ballot for that list, is not that you are not able to cast your ballot, you simply are not able to cast your ballot for that list.”
Nandlall had previously posited 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 had explained. Meanwhile, Williams is arguing that no provision in the Constitution or ROPA explicitly states that a party failing to contest a geographic constituency must be excluded from the ballots in that region.
