The Caribbean Court of Justice today heard arguments in a case filed by a supporter of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) challenging the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) over its decision to exclude the party from the national ballot in three Administrative Regions during the September 1, 2025 General and Regional Elections.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal in Guyana have already dismissed FGM’s challenge and the party, led by Amanza Walton-Desir, opted to move to the CCJ.

The Appellant is asking the CCJ to declare that the decision of The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to exclude the Forward Guyana Movement from the ballot at the 2025 elections in Guyana, rendered the election unconstitutional and of no legal effect.

The Appellant is also challenging the Court of Appeal’s determination that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim and that it should have been properly brought as an election petition.

Attorney-at-law, Vivian Williams, who is representing FGM, said if an action which will likely affect the outcome of the election has to wait until after the election to be challenged, then that process can deny persons the right to vote.

“Our position is which we think is the constitutional position for the court to adopt, is if a person prior to the vote—if electors are prohibited from approaching the constitutional court for that court to make a ruling  or determination with respect to the right to vote then and have wait until after the harm of not being able to vote has already occur, that would diminish the right to vote,” Attorney Williams said.

However, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, argued that there was no exclusion by GECOM of FGM, since the party itself failed to submit a candidate’s list for Regions 7, 8 and 9, therefore, it was unable to contest the election in those areas, according to the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

Nandlall pointed out that the elections officially started when a date was issued by the President, and therefore all parties had time to get their house in order.

He also posited that the question being raised by FGM was best suited for an election petition.

“As Attorney General of Guyana, we have passed through fire and brimstone on these issues, this court will very much recall the attempts that were made to stall the installation of a validly elected government after the 2020 elections were held, and this was the authority and jurisprudence that guided us to a save place because repeatedly the court had to rule including the CCJ,” Mr. Nandlall noted.

The local Courts had ruled that they lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that at the heart of the contention was that the case had proceeded on the assumption that the Judiciary could intervene in GECOM’s administrative decisions.

Related posts:

Court of Appeal dismisses Forward Guyana Movement’s election ballot case Court of Appeal to hand down ruling in Forward Guyana Election ballot case on Thursday Attorneys argue over constitutionality of ballot exclusion in Forward Guyana Movement case CCJ hears arguments in Election Petition case; No date finalised for decision