News Source Guyana Reports : Attorneys clashed in the High Court today over the exclusion of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and the Assembly for Liberty (ALP) from ballots in five electoral districts. The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) contends that without a list of candidates for specific constituencies, a party cannot be represented on the ballot.
Attorney Vivian Williams, representing FGM candidate Krystal Hadassah Fisher, argued that GECOM’s exclusionary practice is discriminatory and unconstitutional. In a lengthy presentation lasting nearly two hours, Williams asserted that GECOM’s actions violate the fundamental right of Guyanese citizens to vote. He described the procedure that omits certain parties from ballots in Regions 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 as an unnecessary burden that dilutes the value of votes.
Williams emphasized that registered voters in some regions are being offered a limited selection of parties, while others enjoy broader options. “What GECOM is doing is creating a situation where some regions just have basic access, while others have premium access, leading to unequal citizens,” he stated. He argued that this discrepancy undermines the democratic process and is a violation of both the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.
To bolster his claims, Williams cited several constitutional articles, highlighting the importance of equal access to voting.
In response, Attorney Arudranauth Gossai, representing GECOM, rejected Williams’ arguments. He maintained that GECOM operates within the bounds of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. Gossai asserted that GECOM is not infringing on anyone’s right to vote, as it is mandated to include only those parties that have submitted candidate lists for specific electoral districts.
He pointed out that the Forward Guyana Movement had opted not to submit lists for Regions 7, 8, and 9, thus disqualifying itself from appearing on the ballots in those areas. “If you choose not to field a list of candidates in the geographic constituency, how are you blaming GECOM for that?” he asked.
Gossai further questioned how FGM would extract names for potential seats if it were included on the ballots, given their lack of a candidate list. “If you don’t have a list, you can’t go on the ballot,” he concluded.
The court deliberations highlighted the ongoing legal complexities surrounding electoral representation in Guyana, and the decision will have significant implications for the upcoming elections. The case underscores the critical balance between electoral processes and the rights of political parties and voters alike.
GECOM CEO Clarifies Authority of Party Agents During Polling Station Operations
