GEORGETOWN, Guyana, CMC – Lawyers representing the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) have hinted at appealing the ruling of Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, who on Friday dismissed the application challenging what the party had described as the unlawful exclusion of duly approved political parties from ballots in several regions ahead of the September 1 general and regional elections.
The application had been filed in the name of Krystal Hadassah Fisher against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and earlier this week, Attorney General Anil Nandlall successfully argued that since the Applicant is seeking constitutional relief against the State, the Office of the Attorney General must be named a party.
The FGM leader had challenged GECOM’s decision not to include the party in the three regions where it did not field candidates. Her Attorney, Dr. Vivian Williams, had asked the High Court to declare the September 1 elections held without the full inclusion of qualified parties null and void, to restrain GECOM from excluding any duly approved national list, and to order the immediate inclusion of FGM candidates in the affected regions.
However, in his ruling, Justice Singh stated that GECOM’s decision was lawful and within the confines of the Constitution, adding that to do otherwise would have been unconstitutional.
The Applicant’s argument that GECOM is discriminating against voters from particular regions is ludicrous and fallacious, as no evidence has been produced to show that GECOM has, in any way, limited or restricted the participation of any party in the upcoming elections.
The Applicant has not shown in any way that GECOM has unlawfully determined which party appears or does not appear on the ballot paper of any geographical constituency. In fact, based on the undisputed evidence before the Court, the parties on whose behalf the ApplicantApplicant purports to be advocating, to wit, the FGM and the ALP (Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity), made deliberate decisions to not vie for a seat/s in those geographical constituencies which resulted in those parties not being placed on the ballot papers for the state constituencies,” the acting Chief Justice ruled.
He stated that the declarations sought by the Applicant are all based on the assertion that GECOM excluded or omitted the FGM and the ALP from the ballot in specific geographic constituencies.
He stated that such an assertion is false and was advanced through grossly disingenuous arguments from the Applicant’s Attorney.
The High Court ruled that the “factual matrix” of the case brought by Fisher clearly shows that the party did not submit Lists of Candidates to contest the Geographical constituencies located in Regions 7, 8, and 9. The ALP did not submit lists of candidates for four regions.
The acting Chief Justice said that the omission of the parties from the ballot papers for those geographical constituencies was entirely lawful.
He said that while Fisher claimed her rights, protected under the Constitution, were violated by GECOM, her Attorney, Dr. Vivian Williams, failed to demonstrate where those breaches occurred.
Citing Article 13, Justice Singh explained that the electoral system, as set out in the Constitution and procedurally laid out in the Representation of the People’s Act (RoPA), was premised on increasing the participation of citizens in smaller, distant communities by ensuring they have a local voice in the National Assembly.
He noted that, in this regard, Fisher failed to establish how she was excluded from the democratic process, emphasizing that her rights to vote and participate in the democratic process remain protected.
“In any event, a party being lawfully omitted from a ballot paper cannot result in the Applicant’s rights under Article 13 of the Constitution being violated. In any event, the Applicant has not presented any evidence of a breach of this Act,” he said, while adding that the application’s assertion is “speculative.”
GECOM’s Attorney, Arudranauth Gossai, had argued that the Commission merely followed the RoPA, which requires the submission of constituency lists before any party can appear on a ballot.
For his part, Nandlall described the case as legally baseless.
“This was a frivolous and completely meritless application. It is ludicrous,” he said after the ruling.
Gossai had asked the Court to award full costs to the respondents, totaling GUY$1.6 million (One Guyana dollar equals 0.004 cents), with Nandlall requesting two million dollars in legal expenses, stating that 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, adding, “it created uncertainty and cast unnecessary doubt over a process that is, by all accounts, being carried out in full compliance with the law.”
However, Williams countered by arguing that costs should not be used to dissuade individuals from approaching the Court for interpretation and requested that no costs be awarded.
Ultimately, the acting Chief Justice ruled that Fisher be ordered to pay each respondent one million dollars on or before September 8.
Williams subsequently announced that FGM will be appealing the case.
and then  have hinted at appealing the ruling of Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh){kind=link}