The Court of Appeal today upheld the decision of the High Court in the case brought by Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), ruling that the Forward Guyana Movement party, and by extension the Assembly for Liberty Party (ALP), were not denied ballot access on the grounds that the parties did not contest the elections in the disputed electoral districts.

The ruling was handed down by the Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Roxane George, in the presence of Justice of Appeal, Rishi Persaud.

Ahead of addressing the substantive issue of the parties’ exclusion from the ballot paper in Regions 7, 8 and 9 in the case of FGM, and Regions 1, 2, 8 and 9 in the case of ALP, the Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Chancellor George explained that the case – Krystal Fisher v. the Guyana Elections Commission – was filed on August 20, 2025 less than two days before members of the Disciplined Services went to the polls, and long after the President had issued the proclamation. It was also pointed out that by the time GECOM was served, voting had already commenced.

“This Court holds that the reliefs sought by the appellant amount to a challenge to the validity of the elections,” the Chancellor ruled, adding that such a challenge must be by way of an election petition as outlined in Article 163 of the Constitution.

Article 163 states that an appeal of a decision in an election petition maybe filed to a Court of Appeal. 

“This is not an appeal from an election petition and as such, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain it. In this regard, the Chief Justice in the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application,” Acting Chancellor George ruled.

In arriving at this decision, the Appellate Court took note of the fact that this particular issue was not frontally canvassed in the High Court, and the acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh proceeded to hear the application, treating with the Constitutional and statutory issues raised by the appellant, Krystal Fisher.

With the Appellate court having no jurisdiction, the Acting Chancellor before addressing the substantive issues, made it clear that any pronouncement on the case would be purely academic.

With that in mind, the Appellate Court said it was in agreement with the decision of the High Court that the case brought by Fisher has no merit.

“The Court agrees that ballot access and therefore voting rights are limited to parties contesting the particular geographical constituencies. There is no violation of Articles 59 and 159 which give the right to vote by way of registration to vote based on the criteria established that is age, citizenship and residency and domicile in relation to commonwealth citizens,” the Chancellor said.

She said while it is accepted that the right to vote is a fundamental part of a democracy in Guyana, it is not a fundamental right, as the provisions in the Constitution do not create a fundamental right to vote because certain conditions must be met.

The Acting Chancellor explained further that one’s right to vote is not diminished if a political party that one supports decides not to contest the elections.

“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. Similarly, it cannot be considered to be discrimination against an elector pursuant to Article 149 on the grounds of race or place of origin, if the political party of that elector’s choice decides not to contest the elections,” the Acting Chancellor said.

She said GECOM has complied fully with both the Constitution and the Representation of the People’s Act.

Additionally, the Chancellor said the appellant did not disclose to the Court that FGM chose not to contest the elections in Regions 7, 8, and 9, and the ALP also opted not to contest the elections in Regions 1, 2, 8 and 9.

“Her affidavit conveyed the impression that GECOM unilaterally excluded the names of FGM and ALP from the ballots in these constituencies. It is only from the affidavit of defence filed on behalf of GECOM that this material set of facts emerged, that it was the choice of these parties not to contest these elections. This is a material non-disclosure which the court frowns upon,” Chancellor George said.

Fisher, through her Attorney, Vivian Williams had also appeal the cost awarded in the lower Court. However, that too was upheld.

According to the Chancellor the case was “unmeritorious” and had taken up significant time. However, the Court set a new deadline of November 14, 2025 for the payment of costs. Fisher is therefore required to pay GECOM and the Attorney General the cost of $1 Million each no later than the November 14 date.

Related posts:

Court of Appeal to hand down ruling in Forward Guyana Election ballot case on Thursday High Court dismisses Forward Guyana Movement’s ballot exclusion case; $2M in costs awarded to GECOM and AG Forward Guyana Movement moves to Court over exclusion from General Election Ballot in three Regions CCJ overturns Guyana Court of Appeal’s decision to hear Election Petition case