Court of Appeal dismisses Amanza case over ballot exclusion

Oct 03, 2025 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The Court of Appeal on Thursday upheld the High Court decision in the Krystal Fisher v. the Guyana Elections Commission case which dealt with the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and the Assembly for Liberty Party’s (ALP) exclusion from certain ballots in the 2025 general and regional elections because they were not contesting certain districts.

On August 20, 2025, Fisher, the Appellant filed a Fixed Date Application seeking the issuance of several declarations. She argued that the GECOM misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, Cap. 1:03 (ROPA) in preparing the ballot papers for certain geographical constituencies.

Specifically, the Appellant asserted that GECOM’s exclusion of the symbols for the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) from the ballot in constituencies where these parties neither contested nor fielded candidates violated Articles 13, 59, and 149 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana (Cap 1:01).

On August 26, 2025 Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh ruled that both Article 160 of the Constitution and section 11 of ROPA provided the legal basis for the exclusion of FGM’s and ALP’s party symbols from the ballot papers in those constituencies where the respective parties had failed to submit lists of candidates.

As a result, judgment was rendered in favour of GECOM and the Attorney General, with costs in the sum of $1,000,000 awarded to each.

Fisher immediately filed an appeal August 30, 2025 asking the Court of Appeal to declare the National and Regional Elections held on the 1st of September 2025, unconstitutional. The Appellants prayed that the Court of Appeal grant inter alia the following reliefs:

A declaration that any election held without the inclusion, on the ballots in all ten regions, of all political parties that have satisfied the legal requirements to contest the national elections is unconstitutional, null and void.

A declaration that the GECOM’s exclusion of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) list of candidates from the ballot’s national elections in regions 7, 8, and 9 constitutes a denial of the Appellant’s right to ballot access and to contest free and fair elections.

On Thursday, Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Roxane George handed down the ruling in the presence of Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud.

Justice George, in delivering the court’s ruling, said that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. She agreed with arguments proffered by Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC and Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC that the appellant’s reliefs amount to a challenge to the validity of elections and this must be challenged by way of an election petition.

“This in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution,” Chancellor George said.

The Court of Appeal noted that the matter was not an appeal arising from an election petition, and as such, the Court was not sitting as an election court.

Nandlall argued that the court was exercising its jurisdiction in an ordinary appeal, and therefore lacked the authority to pronounce on matters relating to the conduct or validity of elections. Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to make pronouncements on elections matter. Additionally, the Court found that the application by FGM lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Fisher’s case advanced “an extremely flawed view,” of the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the ability of parties to be allowed to contest in geographical constituencies for which they have not submitted lists of candidates but yet be permitted to contest the general elections.

The court held that the Appellant failed to show how she was discriminated against when compared to any other elector or candidate in other geographical constituencies.

The court outlined, “It cannot be considered to be discrimination against an elector pursuant to Article 149 of the Constitution on the grounds of race or place of origin if the political party of the elector’s choice chose not to contest in that constituency. It is not for GECOM to consider the racial makeup of a constituency in permitting a party to be on a ballot for a geographical constituency that party chose not to contest. Neither is it for GECOM to consider the place of origin of the electors in determining which parties are to be placed on the ballots. Consequently, Article 13 of the Constitution, which speaks to inclusionary democracy is not implicated at all.”

Further, the court emphasised that the appellant’s party could only be included in the democratic process if it seeks to participate. It found that the appellant’s party, through the statutory framework, had the opportunity to contest all ten geographical constituencies but declined to do so.

Chancellor George noted, “That most definitely was not the fault of GECOM. GECOM did not misinterpret or violate any law by not placing FGM on the ballots in places where they decided not to contest.”

As such, she held that it would be absurd to hold that a political party could chose not to participate election and then cry foul by relying on Articles 13 and 149 of the constitution.

She stressed that GECOM did not deny the appellant ballot access as an elector nor did it prevent her from contesting the election as a candidate for FGM.

“It appears that it is FGM that discriminated against its constituents or persons who wanted to vote for them by not fielding candidates in Regions 7, 8 and 9,” the chancellor said.

The Court of Appeal observed t00 that the appellant failed to disclose that FGM chose not to contest constituencies 7, 8 and 9, thereby giving the impression that GECOM unilaterally excluded the names of FGM from the ballots.

It was only from GECOM’s Affidavit in Defence that, that material fact emerged. The court stated that such material disclosure was frowned upon by the Court as the Appellant must have been aware of this information especially because she was a candidate for FGM. The Court found that such material non-disclosure could lead to the dismissal of the case.

Additionally, the Court found that the “most unmeritorious” case and took up significant judicial time with the court having to deal with it, with urgency because of the claims made. As a result, the Court ordered costs to each of the respondents in the sum of $1,000,000 to be paid on or before 14th November, 2025.

Meanwhile, in response to the ruling, FGM in statement asserted that the judgment unjustly limits a citizen’s right to vote for presidential and national candidates, to whether their chosen party contests a geographic constituency seat in a particular region, notwithstanding that the party meets the minimum requirements and is qualified to contest the national elections.

“This creates an unjust imbalance in which some citizens are denied the full range of choices available under the law, while others, including foreign nationals who qualify through residency, enjoy full access,” the statement said.

While the party anticipates that issue might ultimately be determined by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), it noted that the imposition of costs in constitutional matters is inimical to a citizen’s access to the halls of justice.

“Further, the use of costs as a punitive measure in these types of cases, has both a chilling and deleterious effect on the administration of justice. Courts exist to interpret the law and provide certainty, especially when questions may appear complex or contentious and even where the answer might seem clear and obvious,” FGM said.

In this regard, the party alluded to the 2024 case brought by Christopher Jones challenging the government’s appointment of Sarah Browne and Vikash Ramkissoon as parliamentary secretaries. In that case, the CCJ ordered each party to the case to bear its own costs noting the value of addressing a constitutional question with substantial public interest.

FGM believes that, “The court’s position on costs in this case, risks the dangerous suggestion that legal clarification and justice should only be sought by those who have the financial means to withstand harsh financial penalties, effectively barring ordinary citizens from asking hard questions and holding public entities accountable.”

The party said that both GECOM and the Attorney General are funded by taxpayers, “yet a taxpaying citizen, who interrogates the system for the public good is being financially penalised.”

Further, the party noted that comments suggesting that the case “has taken up time” miss the fundamental purpose of the judiciary.

“As the balancing arm of the three branches of government, it is precisely the role of the courts to devote time and attention to interpreting the law, ensuring accountability, and reinforcing constitutional principles,” FGM said while noting that “Public-interest litigation is not a distraction; it is a core part of the court’s constitutional function and integral to the development of the legal architecture of any successful democracy.”

Meanwhile, the party vowed it will not remain silent. “We stand firmly with Ms. [Krystal] Fisher and all Guyanese in demanding a system where every citizen’s vote carries equal weight and where the foundations of our democracy are not eroded by rulings that diminish the rights of our own people,” the party stated.

Fisher was represented by Dr. Vivian Williams while Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC, along with Mr. Arud Gossai, appeared for GECOM and Attorney General, Nandlall SC appeared in person, together with Shoshanna Lall, Deputy Solicitor General and Raeanna Clarke, Senior Legal Advisor for the State.

---

• ballot exclusion, Court of Appeal, FGM, GECOM, Krystal Fisher

---