Arguments in the High Court case challenging the move by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), to exclude Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) from the ballots in key hinterland regions, will begin Tuesday before acting Chief Justice, Navendra Singh.

The Fixed Date Application (FDA) filed by FGM Candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher – a registered elector in Region 9 and candidate on the national list – commenced this morning in the High Court before the acting Chief Justice, and under the watchful eyes of a number of international observers monitoring next week’s General and Regional Elections.

In her application, Fisher argues that having surpassed the minimum requirement to contest the General Elections, FGM ought to have been included on the ballots in Regions 7, 8 and 9, adding that the exclusionary practice violates both the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.

The challenge also takes into account the omission of ALP ballots in Regions 1, 2, 8 and 9 for the General Elections.

Today, Fisher’s Attorney, Dr. Vivian Williams requested additional time to review submission made by the Elections Commission after only receiving the submission on Sunday.

The acting Chief Justice agreed to have the case adjourned to Tuesday, August 26 but signaled his intention to have it concluded by the end of the week ahead of Monday’s elections.

Outside the Courtroom, Dr Williams said he is confident he has a solid case before the Court.

“Anyone who says that the application doesn’t stand on solid ground, you should ask them where in the Constitution and where in the Representation of the People Act it says that if a party does not contest a geographic constituency it shall not appear on the ballots of that region. And if you or anyone could find the provision in the constitution that says that plainly or the provision in the Representation of the People Act that says that, then we could have a conversation as to how confident I might be. But I haven’t seen it as yet, so as of now, I am very confident,” Dr Williams said.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall said Dr Williams’ request for additional time to review the submissions made by GECOM was a reasonable one.

He also made an application to join the proceedings, telling reporters that he ought to have been named from the inception given the nature of the Constitutional matter.

“I had an application to join the proceedings because unfortunately, though I should have been named as Attorney General, I was not named. When you claim constitutional reliefs against the State, the Attorney General by law must be named. In addition to that, this is a matter of high public importance and if you look at all of our election cases, any matter touching and concerning elections, the Attorney General is named,” he said.

With no formal objections from the applicant and respondent, the AG was added as a party in the matter. The Attorney General was invited by the Court to file an affidavit in defence, however, he declined.

“I don’t think that the matter requires any evidence on the part of the Attorney General, I believe that whatever evidence the case requires is there from GECOM, and I would rely on that. By and large, this matter is a case of prude law, it is what the Constitution lays down, it is what the RoPA lays down, and it all depends on how we interpret what is there,” the Attorney General said.

Nandlall said based on the System of Proportional Representation, it is his understanding that parties could only contest the elections in the regions for which they have submitted Lists of Candidates. .

But FGM believes that the “exclusionary practice” is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Related posts:

Forward Guyana Movement moves to Court over exclusion from General Election Ballot in three Regions Election fraud case adjourned to May 29 as High Court continues to hear Constitutional issues High Court rules it has no jurisdiction to hear suspended MPs case Court of Appeal will hear arguments in Election petition appeal case in February