New Election Petition Challenges September 2025 Polls on Grounds of Systemic Discrimination

A fresh legal challenge has been mounted against the results of Guyana’s September 1, 2025, General and Regional Elections, asserting that the country’s electoral laws and their application by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) are unconstitutional and systematically disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate, particularly in Amerindian-majority hinterland regions. The petition, filed in the High Court on October 14, 2025, by Randolph Julian Critchlow of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), seeks to nullify the election results and compel new elections under a system that guarantees equal ballot access for all citizens.

This new petition arrives just weeks after the incumbent People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), led by President Irfaan Ali, secured a strengthened majority, and a newcomer party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), dramatically reshaped the opposition landscape. The petition’s core argument is that statutory requirements for parties to contest elections impose disproportionate and discriminatory burdens on those operating in sparsely populated hinterland regions, effectively violating the constitutional right to vote and the principle of proportional representation.

The Heart of the Petition: Allegations and Legal Grounds

The case, filed by attorney Dr. Vivian M. Williams, names GECOM, the Chief Election Officer, and the Attorney General as respondents. It contends that the September 2025 elections were not conducted in substantial accordance with the law, leading to a violation of fundamental rights.

The central issue is the exclusion of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) and the Assembly of Liberty and Prosperity (ALP) from the General Election ballots in several regions. FGM was excluded from ballots in Regions 7, 8, and 9, while ALP was excluded from Regions 1, 2, 8, and 9. The petition argues this disenfranchised nearly 120,000 electors, or approximately 9% of the national electorate.

The petitioner argues that this exclusion stems from an unconstitutional interpretation of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA). Specifically, the petition challenges provisions (Sections 11, 11A, 11B) that require political parties to meet certain thresholds—such as contesting a minimum number of geographic constituencies and seats—to qualify for the General Election ballot nationwide. The petition asserts that these requirements, when applied to the demographic realities of the hinterland, create an insurmountable barrier for smaller parties and disenfranchise voters in those regions.

The legal challenge is grounded in several key articles of the Constitution of Guyana:

The petition is supported by expert affidavits and a statistical report titled “Comprehensive Report on Distortional Burdens Across Regions in Guyana’s Electoral System.” This evidence purports to show that the per capita burden for meeting signature requirements is exponentially higher in hinterland regions—for example, the burden in Region 8 is approximately 35 times greater than in the densely populated coastal Region 4. This, the petitioner contends, amounts to systemic geographic and racial discrimination.

A Familiar Fight in a New Arena

This is not the first time these issues have been before the courts. A similar pre-election challenge, Fisher v. GECOM, was filed by an FGM candidate in August 2025 and was swiftly dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The courts deemed that case “most unmeritorious,” ruling that the challenge should have been brought as a post-election petition under Article 163 and that parties that choose not to contest a region cannot claim discrimination. The Court of Appeal was firm in its stance that GECOM had acted lawfully and that the electoral laws were constitutional [1].

However, the current petition, filed by Mr. Critchlow, is strategically different. It is filed as a proper election petition under Article 163, addressing the primary jurisdictional objection that led to the dismissal of the Fisher case. Furthermore, it introduces new expert statistical evidence to argue that parties are not choosing not to contest, but are being forced out by a discriminatory system. The Guyana Business Journal’s own editorial board previously criticized the Fisher ruling, arguing it represented a “profound missed opportunity” to address fundamental issues of democratic inclusion and that the court’s reasoning ignored the distinction between geographic and national PR seats central to Article 160 [2].

The Political Landscape of the 2025 Election

The petition has been filed in the wake of a dramatic election that reshuffled Guyana’s political deck. The PPP/C increased its majority from 33 to 36 seats, securing a clear mandate. The real story, however, was the collapse of the APNU coalition, which saw its seat count plummet from 31 to 12, and the stunning rise of WIN, a new party that captured 16 seats and became the main opposition [3].

Source: Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), via Wikipedia [3]

The Forward Guyana Movement, despite being excluded from three regions, secured 4,326 votes nationally (0.99%) and won a single seat on the national top-up list. The results starkly illustrate the petition’s claims: in Regions 7, 8, and 9—all Amerindian-majority regions [4]—FGM received zero votes because it was not on the ballot. This outcome gives a concrete statistical basis to the claim of disenfranchisement.

Analysis and Implications

This election petition presents a more sophisticated and procedurally sound challenge to Guyana’s electoral framework than its predecessor. By introducing expert evidence on discriminatory burdens and correctly filing under Article 163, the petitioners have overcome the key obstacles that doomed the Fisher case. The High Court will now be compelled to engage with the substantive constitutional questions at play.

The core of the case rests on a fundamental tension between the legislative requirements of ROPA and the constitutional guarantee of an equal right to vote within a national system of proportional representation. The petitioner’s argument that the law creates a “de facto residency-based filter” that disproportionately harms hinterland communities is a serious charge that strikes at the heart of Guyana’s commitment to inclusionary democracy.

While the Court of Appeal has already offered a strong opinion on the constitutionality of the existing system, the new evidence and refined legal arguments may force a fresh and more nuanced consideration. The outcome of this petition, whether it succeeds or fails, will have significant implications. A ruling in favor of the petitioner could trigger a constitutional crisis, potentially invalidating the recent election and forcing Parliament to undertake major electoral reforms. A dismissal would solidify the current interpretation of the law but would leave the underlying grievances of systemic inequality and regional disenfranchisement to fester, likely fueling further political division.

Regardless of the legal outcome, the petition highlights an urgent need for a national conversation on electoral reform. The issues of ballot access, campaign finance, and the practical barriers faced by new and smaller political parties are critical to the health of Guyana’s democracy. As the nation continues to navigate its unprecedented economic transformation, ensuring that its political system is equitable, inclusive, and truly representative of all its citizens has never been more critical.

Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board

References

[1] Guyana Chronicle. (2025, October 2). ‘Most unmeritorious’ – Appeal Court throws out FGM case. https://guyanachronicle.com/2025/10/02/most-unmeritorious-appeal-court-throws-out-fgm-case/

[2] Guyana Business Journal. (2025, October 3). Fisher v. GECOM – A Missed Opportunity for Democratic Progress. https://guyanabusinessjournal.com/2025/10/a-missed-opportunity-for-democratic-progress-the-appeal-courts-troubling-dismissal-of-electoral-inclusion/

[3] Wikipedia. (2025). 2025 Guyanese general election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Guyanese_general_election

[4] International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). (2025). The Indigenous World 2025: Guyana. https://iwgia.org/en/guyana/5736-iw-2025-guyana.html

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.