Chief Justice says ‘no merit’ in cases as she tosses out challenges to Guyana’s electoral system

Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George on Tuesday rejected two constitutional challenges aimed at overturning Guyana’s proportional representation (PR) electoral system, ruling that the cases brought by Christopher Ram and Vishnu Bandhu were “without merit” and failed to demonstrate any breach of the country’s Constitution.

Delivering her decision in the High Court, Justice George made it clear that Guyana’s electoral system, long grounded in constitutional reform and legislative clarity, remains lawful and democratic. The Representation of the People Act (ROPA), she ruled, does not violate constitutional provisions—contrary to what the claimants alleged.

“The system is part of a carefully balanced representational framework,” the Chief Justice said, highlighting that both the Constitution and ROPA “work in tandem” to shape Guyana’s electoral architecture.

“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.”

The first case, brought by accountant and activist Christopher Ram, claimed that the electoral system was unconstitutional because it allegedly denied individuals the right to contest elections outside of party lists. Ram argued that Article 160 of the Constitution allowed for individual candidacy, but this had not been honoured in legislation.

But according to Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who led the defence, this interpretation was wholly incorrect.

“Article 160 creates a proportional representation system,” Nandlall said Tuesday. “By its very nature, PR does not allow independent candidates… Ram’s argument is flawed at its core.”

Justice George agreed, finding that the Constitution neither envisioned nor mandated a system that accommodates individual candidacies outside party structures.

The second challenge came from Vishnu Bandhu, leader of the United Republican Party. Bandhu contended that ROPA infringed on his constitutional right to participate in elections under Article 147—because it forced him to contest both geographical and top-up seats, when he only wished to run in one constituency.

But the court was unpersuaded. Justice George said Article 147, which guarantees freedom of association, does not confer a right to contest elections in any form one desires.

“The Constitution is clear,” Nandlall explained. “You can form or join a political party—that right is protected. But how you contest elections is governed by electoral law. Elections must be regulated.”

Bandhu also sought to rely on international human rights conventions signed by Guyana, claiming they gave him a broader right to participate. But the court ruled that such conventions cannot override the local constitutional structure without explicit incorporation.

“That would be an unholy way of amending the Constitution through a backdoor,” Nandlall said.

The court also imposed costs against both applicants, describing the lawsuits as frivolous and vexatious. Ram was ordered to pay $500,000 to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). Bandhu must pay $250,000 to GECOM and $250,000 to the Attorney General.

“These cases were clearly meant to delay the elections,” Nandlall claimed. “But once we filed our submissions, that tactic quickly unraveled. We made sure the matter was resolved long before the polls.”