High Court: GECOM right to keep parties of Amanza Walton, Simona Broomes off the ballot in some regions

Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh has ruled that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) acted entirely within the law when it excluded the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and the Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) from the ballot in several electoral districts ahead of the upcoming elections.

The ruling, delivered on Friday in the High Court, ends legal action brought by FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher, who had challenged the party’s omission from the ballot in Regions 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 – arguing that her right to vote for her party of choice had been violated. But Justice Singh disagreed.

It was not GECOM that excluded the parties, he ruled, but the parties themselves who lawfully chose not to contest in those regions. It would be unlawful for GECOM to put them on the ballot.

Justice Singh emphasised that under Guyana’s electoral laws, a party must submit a list of candidates in each region it wishes to contest. In this case, neither FGM nor ALP submitted lists in the disputed regions – making it legally impossible for GECOM to include them on the ballot.

“You cannot tell voters in Region Seven that they can vote for a party which, by its own lawful choice, opted out of that region,” he said.

The court dismissed Fisher’s Fixed Date Application (FDA) in its entirety, rejecting all claims of constitutional breaches, discrimination, or procedural failure.

GECOM’s legal counsel, Arudranauth Gossai, stressed during the hearings that the commission merely followed the Representation of the People Act (RoPA), which requires the submission of constituency lists before any party can appear on a ballot.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, who appeared in support of GECOM, described the case as legally baseless.

“This was a frivolous and completely meritless application,” Nandlall said after the ruling.

“It is ludicrous.”

The judge also rejected claims that the ballot exclusion violated constitutional rights, including the right to vote and to participate in governance.

Referencing Article 13 of the Constitution, which promotes inclusive democracy, Justice Singh found no evidence that citizens were being denied meaningful participation.

Following the ruling, Gossai asked the court to award full costs to the respondents — totalling $1.6 million.

But Nandlall went further, requesting $2 million in legal costs, saying the case lacked “any serious grievance of an appalling nature” and had unfairly disrupted national election preparations.

“This application was filed just days before elections,” Nandlall said.

“It created uncertainty and cast unnecessary doubt over a process that is, by all accounts, being carried out in full compliance with the law.”

Attorney Vivian Williams argued that costs should not be used to dissuade persons from approaching the court for interpretation and asked that no costs be awarded.

Justice Singh said the case was filed at a late stage and that the court itself lost time along with all parties involved. He accepted Gossai’s argument for prescribed costs and noted that there were two respondents.

As such, he awarded discretionary costs of $1 million each to be paid by 8 September 2025.

With this decision, GECOM will proceed with elections as scheduled, and ballots for all 10 administrative regions will include only those parties that submitted the required geographic lists.