Forward Guyana election case rescheduled; Chief Justice vows ruling this week

The High Court has rescheduled the constitutional case challenging the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) ballot practices to Tuesday, August 26, after the applicant’s lawyer requested additional time to review the defence’s submission, which was received Sunday evening.

On Monday morning, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh presided over arguments in the matter of Krystal Hadassah Fisher v. GECOM, as observers from the European Union, the Organisation of American States (OAS), and the Carter Center monitored proceedings.

Present in court were at least one GECOM Commissioner, alongside lawyers representing the applicant, the Commission and the Attorney General, along with leaders of Forward Guyana Movement – Amanza Walton Desir and Nigel London.

Vivian Williams, appearing for Fisher, told the court that while he could begin arguments immediately, he required more time to properly review GECOM’s defence, which he had not read due to travel. He, therefore, requested a rescheduling for Tuesday. Chief Justice Singh, emphasising his intention to deliver a ruling within the week, agreed and cleared the court’s calendar for a full day of arguments.

Representing GECOM was attorney Arudranauth Gossai, standing in for senior counsel Anthony Astaphan, while Attorney General Anil Nandlall appeared with Shoshanna Lall and Raeanna Clarke. Nandlall supported a speedy determination of the case, noting that the issues are rooted in “pure law” and that no additional evidence was required beyond GECOM’s affidavit.

The matter centres on a Fixed Date Application filed by Fisher, a national candidate of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM). She contends that GECOM’s exclusion of her party from ballots in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine violates multiple constitutional guarantees, including the right to vote, equal suffrage, non-discrimination, and proportional representation. The application further argues that such exclusion undermines inclusionary democracy and seeks declarations that any elections held without full ballot access for qualified parties should be deemed null and void.

Outside the court, Williams expressed confidence in his client’s case. He said no law exists to support GECOM’s practice of removing parties from ballots in regions where they do not field geographic candidates.

“Anyone who says the application doesn’t stand on solid ground—you should ask them where in the Constitution or the Representation of the People’s Act it says that,” Williams told reporters.

Nandlall, however, indicated that the state is equally prepared to defend GECOM’s interpretation. He said the Attorney General’s intervention underscored the constitutional weight of the case, which some government supporters have dismissed as frivolous.

With national elections set for next Monday, Justice Singh has signalled that arguments will be completed on Tuesday and a ruling delivered before the end of the week.