Appeal Court dismisses FGM’s case against GECOM

The Court of Appeal this morning dismissed the legal challenge brought by the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) political party against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), chastising the case as “most unmeritorious” given that “this case does not meet the bar of a major matter in the public interest”.

In a summary judgement read by Acting Chancellor, Justice Roxane George, the court upheld the August 29 ruling by Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, and awarded further costs of $1 million each to the defendants in the case: the Attorney General and GECOM.

“…the Chief Justice was correct in his interpretation of Article 160 and ROPA that a political party cannot earn votes in a geographic constituency, if it does not field candidates for and thereby does not contest that constituency. As such the finding that the political party can only be included on a ballot for a constituency it is contesting is correct,” Justice George noted.

“This case is most unmeritorious, and has taken up significant judicial time, with the court having to deal with it with urgency because of the claims made. Given the constitutional and statutory provisions which are clear, this case does not meet the bar of a major matter in the public interest.”

The Appeal Court chastised the applicant for cherry-picking sections of the constitution in putting together the case.

“It is unfortunate that the litigant seeks to construe the constitution or relevant legislation by relying on fragments of provisions in order to bolster their misguided views, rather than reading the provisions as a whole. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed,” Justice George directed.

The applicant in the case is FGM Region Nine candidate, Krystal Hadassah Fisher, who was represented by Attorney Vivian Williams. The case challenged the exclusion of political parties from ballots in regions where they have not submitted geographical constituency lists, contending that this practice violates citizens’ constitutional right to vote for a party of their choice. FGM did not submit Geographical Constituency Lists of Candidates for Regions 7, 8, and 9 and was therefore excluded from the ballots in those regions.

In the application it was also noted that the Assembly and Liberty for Prosperity (ALP) party was also not included in Regions 1, 2, 8, and 9 where that party did not submit Geographical Constituency Lists.

The applicant argued that the practice was discriminatory and in violation on Article 13 of the Constitution. However in keeping with the previous ruling of the High Court, the Appeal Court faulted FGM for not making its party available in those regions.

“It appears that it is FGM that discriminated against its constituents or persons who may have wanted to vote for or support it, by not fielding candidates in the identified geographical constituencies. FGM and ALP… declined to include themselves in the democratic processes of the elections in these constituencies. GECOM did not misinterpret, misapply or violate any law in not placing these parties on the ballot, where they decided not to compete,” Justice George said