The Court of Appeal today dismissed a case filed by a Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) Member, Krystal Fisher in the matter involving its exclusion from the ballots in several electoral districts during the now-concluded General and Regional Elections.
The appellant sought reliefs which, both in form and substance, invited the Court of Appeal, sitting in its ordinary constitutional jurisdiction, to declare the September 1 poll unconstitutional.
On August 20, 2020, the appellant filed a Fixed Date Application seeking the issuance of several declarations. The central issue in the appellant’s case rested in her contention that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, Cap. 1:03 (ROPA) in preparing the ballot papers for certain geographical constituencies.
Specifically, the Appellant asserted that GECOM’s exclusion of the symbols for the FGM and Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) from the ballot in constituencies where these parties neither contested nor fielded candidates violated Articles 13, 59, and 149 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.
In his judgment delivered on August 26, 2025, the Chief Justice Navindra Singh (ag.) determined that both Article 160 of the Constitution and section 11 of ROPA provided the legal basis for the exclusion of FGM’s and ALP’s party symbols from the ballot papers in those constituencies where the respective parties had failed to submit lists of candidates.
Consequently, judgment was rendered in favour of the Respondents, with costs in the sum of $1,000,000 awarded to each.
The instant appeal was filed on August 30, 2025.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to disclose that FGM had voluntarily chosen not to contest constituencies 7, 8, and 9, which created the misleading impression that GECOM excluded FGM from the ballots. This fact only surfaced in GECOM’s Affidavit in Defence.
The Court of Appeal stated that such material disclosure was frowned upon by the Court as the Appellant must have been aware of this information especially because she was a candidate for FGM. The Court found that such material non-disclosure could lead to the dismissal of the case.
The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court’s order for each Respondent to receive $1,000,000 in costs (payable by November 14, 2025), and further ordered an additional $1,000,000 in costs to each Respondent by the same date.
Dr. Vivian Williams appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC, along with Mr. Arud Gossai, appeared for the First Named Respondent. The Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC appeared in person, together with Ms. Shoshanna Lall, Deputy Solicitor General and Ms. Raeanna Clarke, Senior Legal Advisor.
