Fisher v. GECOM -A Missed Opportunity for Democratic Progress: The Appeal Court’s Troubling Dismissal of Electoral Inclusion

The Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the Fisher v. GECOM case represents a profound missed opportunity for Guyana to strengthen its democratic foundations. In characterizing this constitutional challenge as “most unmeritorious” and failing to meet “the bar of a major matter in the public interest,” Acting Chancellor Justice Roxane George and her colleagues have demonstrated a troubling disconnect from the fundamental principles of democratic inclusion that should guide our nation’s highest courts.

The Guyana Business Journal strongly disagrees with both the reasoning and the tone of this ruling. Far from being unmeritorious, the Fisher case raised vital questions about electoral equality that go to the very heart of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society. When over 120,000 Guyanese voters are denied the opportunity to vote for legally approved political parties based solely on their geographic location, this is precisely the kind of “major matter in the public interest” that our courts should address with careful consideration, not dismissive rhetoric.

The Appeal Court’s reasoning reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional framework governing Guyana’s electoral system. Justice George’s assertion that “a political party cannot earn votes in a geographic constituency, if it does not field candidates for and thereby does not contest that constituency” completely ignores the distinction between geographic constituency seats and national proportional representation seats that is central to Article 160 of the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly provides for votes to be cast “throughout Guyana” in favor of lists of candidates, with seats allocated proportionally based on the total national vote. By conflating these two distinct electoral mechanisms, the court has effectively rewritten the Constitution to eliminate the national character of proportional representation.

The court’s criticism that the appellant was “cherry-picking sections of the constitution” is particularly galling when the judges themselves have ignored the plain language of Article 160(1)(a), which requires that “votes shall be cast throughout Guyana in favour of lists of candidates.” This is not cherry-picking; this is reading the Constitution as written. The phrase “throughout Guyana” has a clear and unambiguous meaning that cannot be wished away by judicial fiat. If the framers of the Constitution had intended to limit voting to constituency-specific lists, they would have explicitly stated so.

Perhaps most troubling is the court’s assertion that it was FGM and ALP that “discriminated against [their] constituents” by not fielding candidates in certain regions. This victim-blaming approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of constitutional rights. The right to vote is not contingent upon the strategic decisions of political parties; it is an inherent right of citizenship that the state has an obligation to protect. When GECOM excludes legally approved parties from ballots, it is the electoral commission—not the parties themselves—that creates barriers to democratic participation.

The international legal framework strongly supports the position that the court has rejected. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Guyana has ratified and incorporated into its domestic law, guarantees every citizen the right to vote without unreasonable restrictions. The practice of excluding parties from regional ballots based on their failure to contest geographic seats constitutes precisely such an unreasonable restriction. Courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions have consistently held that electoral systems must be interpreted to maximize, not minimize, democratic participation.

The court’s decision also overlooks the practical realities faced by smaller political parties in Guyana. The requirement to field candidates in every geographic constituency creates significant financial and organizational barriers that effectively exclude newer or resource-constrained parties from full participation in the democratic process. This is particularly problematic in a country where political competition has historically been dominated by two major parties. A truly inclusive democracy requires space for new voices and alternative perspectives, not additional barriers to entry.

The dismissive tone of the ruling, particularly the characterization of the case as having “taken up significant judicial time,” is deeply concerning. Constitutional challenges are not inconveniences to be brushed aside; they are essential mechanisms for ensuring that our democratic institutions remain accountable to the people they serve. When citizens raise legitimate concerns about electoral fairness, they deserve thoughtful judicial consideration, not judicial irritation.

The award of $1 million in costs to each defendant sends a chilling message to future litigants who might consider challenging electoral practices. This punitive approach to constitutional litigation will inevitably discourage citizens from exercising their right to seek judicial review of government actions. In a democracy, access to the courts should be facilitated, not penalized.

The Guyana Business Journal calls upon the legal community, civil society organizations, and concerned citizens to continue advocating for electoral reform that ensures true democratic inclusion. While this domestic judicial avenue has been closed, the fundamental issues raised in the Fisher case remain unresolved and may yet find vindication at the Caribbean Court of Justice, Guyana’s final appellate court. The practice of excluding approved parties from regional ballots continues to create a two-tiered system of citizenship that is incompatible with democratic principles, and we encourage the appellants to pursue all available legal remedies, including a potential appeal to the CCJ, which has consistently demonstrated a more progressive approach to constitutional interpretation and the protection of fundamental rights.

We also urge the National Assembly to consider legislative reforms that would guarantee all approved political parties access to all regional ballots, regardless of whether they contest geographic seats. Such reforms would strengthen Guyana’s democracy by ensuring that every citizen, irrespective of their location, has access to the full range of political choices available in our society.

The Appeal Court may have dismissed the Fisher case, but it cannot dismiss the underlying democratic deficit that the case sought to address. Until every Guyanese citizen has equal access to the ballot box and equal opportunity to vote for the party of their choice, our democracy remains incomplete. The Guyana Business Journal will continue to advocate for the widening of democracy’s circle until that fundamental promise is fulfilled for all our citizens.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.