CCJ to rule on constitutional battle over FGM’s ballot exclusion in Regions 7, 8, and 9

Jul 17, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved judgment on an appeal seeking to declare Guyana’s 1^st September, 2025 National and Regional Elections unconstitutional and of no legal effect — a claim two lower courts have already rejected.

The regional tribunal, sitting in Port of Spain, Trinidad, heard the appeal in Krystal Hadassah Fisher v. The Guyana Elections Commission and The Attorney General of Guyana (CCJ Appeal GYCV No. 1 of 2026) on Thursday, and said it would notify the parties once a decision is ready and set a date for its delivery.

At the heart of the case is Fisher’s argument that the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) exclusion of her party, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), from the ballot in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine rendered the entire national election unconstitutional. GECOM and the Attorney General reject that framing, maintaining that FGM was never excluded — rather, the party itself failed to submit a candidates’ list for those three regions, making it ineligible to contest elections there under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA).

That distinction proved central to the case’s outcome in both lower courts. The Court of Appeal found that Fisher, herself an FGM candidate, failed to disclose that FGM had chosen not to contest the three regions, creating what the court called a false impression that GECOM had unilaterally shut the party out. The court described this non-disclosure as a serious matter and sufficient grounds on its own to dismiss the appeal.

Fisher filed a Fixed Date Application in the High Court on 20^th August, 2025, arguing that GECOM had misapplied ROPA by preparing ballots that omitted the symbols of FGM and the Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) in constituencies where neither party had fielded candidates. She argued this violated Articles 13, 59, and 149 of Guyana’s Constitution.

Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh dismissed the case on 26^th  August, 2025, ruling that Article 160 of the Constitution and Section 11 of ROPA justified excluding party symbols from ballots in regions where a party had not submitted a candidates’ list. The High Court awarded $1,000,000 in costs to each respondent.

Fisher appealed on 30^th August, 2025, asking the Court of Appeal to declare the entire election null and void on the grounds that no national election can exclude any qualified party from any region’s ballot. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the original costs award, and added a further $1,000,000 in appellate costs to each respondent.

Beyond the non-disclosure finding, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case on both procedural and substantive grounds.

On procedure, the court agreed with counsel for GECOM and the Attorney General that because the election process had already begun with the presidential proclamation, Fisher’s challenge amounted to a claim about the validity of the election — which under Article 163 of the Constitution can only be brought through a formal election petition, not the application Fisher filed. The court noted her application was filed less than two days before disciplined forces voted and was served only after voting had begun, meaning the court was not sitting as an election court and lacked jurisdiction to rule on the election’s validity.

On the merits, the court found Fisher’s case rested on what it called an “extremely flawed” reading of the Constitution and ROPA, affirming that ballot access is limited to parties actually contesting a given constituency. It found no breach of Articles 59 and 159, which govern voter registration, and no violation of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The court also accepted the Attorney General’s argument that the right to vote, while fundamental to democracy, is not absolute under Guyana’s Constitution and remains subject to geographic and registration requirements. It rejected Fisher’s discrimination claim under Article 149, since FGM’s absence from the three regions was its own choice rather than any GECOM action based on race or origin, and found that Article 13’s guarantee of inclusionary democracy was not implicated, since FGM had the opportunity to contest those regions and simply declined.

The same legal teams from the lower courts appeared before the CCJ panel — President Justice Winston Anderson and Presiding Judges Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Winston Barrow, Eboe Osuji, and Arif Balkan. Dr. Vivian Williams represented Fisher, who appeared virtually, while Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan led GECOM’s defence and Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC, appearing virtually, led the state’s legal team.

---

• ballot, Caribbean Court of Justice, FGM, GECOM

---