The State Should Not Punish the Citizen for Accessing the Court

Commentary

Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s public commentary on a constitutional challenge raises concerns about the State’s intimidation of citizens exercising their right to judicial review.

By The Guyana Business Journal · May 22, 2026

Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s public commentary on the Forward Guyana Movement’s constitutional challenge — now set for a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) hearing on July 16, 2026 — warrants a response that the daily press has not provided. This is not a defense of the merits of the FGM case, nor is it an endorsement of the legal strategy employed. Rather, it is a clear-eyed objection to what appears to be the State Attorney General using his platform to intimidate a citizen who is exercising her constitutional right to seek judicial review of a question that is neither frivolous nor simple.

The appellant’s written submissions before the CCJ advance a structural constitutional claim with three interlocking elements.

The first is jurisdictional. The courts below treated the challenge as one falling within Article 163 of the Constitution — the exclusive domain of election petitions — and dismissed it on that basis. The appellant argues that this was an error of law. Article 163 concerns the validity and conduct of a specific election already held. The original challenge was filed before the election took place and questioned whether the legal framework governing ballot access was constitutionally permissible in the first instance. While the subsequent appeal did seek broader relief regarding the election’s validity, the core of the initial constitutional challenge concerned the rules of the game, not a petition disputing the score. The Court of Appeal conflated the two, and the CCJ will decide whether that conflation was correct.

The second argument goes to the substance of the right to vote. The appellant’s submissions contend that under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) as currently interpreted and applied, the content of that right — the actual range of choices available at the ballot — varies materially depending solely on where in Guyana a voter lives. Voters in Region 4 faced a broader electoral menu than voters in Regions 7, 8, and 9. The same nationally approved parties were available to some citizens and invisible to others. The submissions argue that this geographic variance is not merely a regulation of the mechanics of elections, but an impermissible diminution of the right to vote itself — one that no ordinary legislation can authorize. While the Court of Appeal has explicitly rejected this interpretation, holding that the relevant constitutional provisions establish conditions for exercising the franchise rather than a fundamental right to vote, the CCJ will have the final say.

The third argument is perhaps the most structurally significant. The appellant’s submissions present a detailed empirical analysis of how ROPA’s nomination requirements operate in practice across Guyana’s ten regions. The core finding is that the per-capita burden of satisfying those requirements falls far more heavily on smaller hinterland regions than on Region 4 — not marginally so, but by a substantial multiple. The analysis further contends that this disparity is not incidental: the data shows a strong relationship between the weight of compliance requirements in a given region and the number of parties that actually appear on that region’s ballot. In other words, the heavier the burden, the fewer the choices available to voters. The submissions argue that the practical consequence of this pattern was to exclude approved national party lists from certain regional ballots, effectively denying a meaningful portion of the hinterland electorate the full range of choices that voters elsewhere enjoyed, and distorting the proportional allocation of parliamentary seats as a result.

The argument, in essence, is that a rule which appears neutral on its face — submit a geographic list or your party does not appear on that region’s ballot — operates in practice as a structural barrier that systematically disadvantages voters in smaller, predominantly Indigenous and hinterland communities. This is not a trivial claim. It is a claim about whether Guyana’s electoral architecture, as currently constructed, produces a two-tiered franchise in which geography, rather than constitutional principle, determines the effective content of a citizen’s vote. The CCJ will rule on whether those arguments are correct. They may not prevail. But they are arguments the region’s highest court should hear, and the attempt to pre-empt that hearing through public ridicule and cost-threats is an inappropriate use of ministerial authority.

GBJ Data Note: The empirical analysis shows that the per-capita burden of ROPA’s nomination requirements falls by a substantial multiple more heavily on smaller hinterland regions compared to Region 4.

The argument, in essence, is that a rule which appears neutral on its face — submit a geographic list or your party does not appear on that region’s ballot — operates in practice as a structural barrier that systematically disadvantages voters in smaller, predominantly Indigenous and hinterland communities.

There are at least three things wrong with the Attorney General’s conduct here, independent of the merits.

First, the chilling effect is real — and it appears to be the point. When the nation’s chief law officer publicly names a private citizen, describes her legal filing as an abuse of process, and warns that costs will be pursued, the message to every Guyanese contemplating a constitutional challenge is unmistakable: the State will come for you. The CCJ has not yet heard the matter. It should be noted that the costs are also part of the appeal to the CCJ and the CCJ could reverse the cost order even if it rules against Fisher on the merits. Yet the AG speaks as though the outcome is foregone and the punishment already in motion. This is not the conduct of a state confident in its arguments.

Second, the argument against FGM’s leadership proves too much. Nandlall argues that because Amanza Walton-Desir — a lawyer herself — is not appearing as counsel in the matter, she is using Ms. Fisher as a shield. This may or may not be true. But it has no legal relevance. Citizens are not required to be wealthy, professionally credentialed, or politically prominent to access the courts. If the AG believes there is improper conduct in how the litigation was organized or funded, there are professional and legal mechanisms to raise that concern. Denouncing the plaintiff on television is not among them.

Third, and most importantly: the CCJ exists for a reason. Guyana acceded to the CCJ’s appellate jurisdiction precisely because it was recognized that lower courts, however competent, are not the final word on constitutional questions. Two lower courts ruling against a party does not make the appeal an abuse of process. It makes it an appeal. The submissions before the CCJ raise questions about jurisdictional characterisation, the substance of the right to vote, and the structural impact of ROPA on hinterland communities — questions that warrant the Court’s considered attention, whatever the ultimate answer.

When the nation’s chief law officer publicly names a private citizen, describes her legal filing as an abuse of process, and warns that costs will be pursued, the message to every Guyanese contemplating a constitutional challenge is unmistakable: the State will come for you.

What we are witnessing is a familiar pattern in Guyanese political culture: the State defeating its opponent in court, then using the moral authority of that victory to delegitimize not just the case, but the right to have brought it. That pattern is corrosive. It teaches ordinary Guyanese — schoolteachers in Paramakatoi, market vendors in Bourda, cane cutters in Berbice — that the courts are a theater of power, not a forum of right.

The constitutional question at the heart of this case is not small: whether a citizen in Region 8 has the same effective right to vote as a citizen in Region 4. That question deserves an answer. If the answer is yes — if ROPA as written and applied is constitutionally sound — then let the CCJ say so, and let the matter rest. But the answer should come from the court, not from a ministerial broadcast designed to make the price of asking the question too high to pay.

The courthouse door must remain open. The cost of closing it — even by intimidation — is higher than any legal bill.

The constitutional question at the heart of this case is not small: whether a citizen in Region 8 has the same effective right to vote as a citizen in Region 4. That question deserves an answer.

Supported By

We are grateful for the partnership and support of individuals and organizations committed to advancing Guyanese and Caribbean development and human capital investment.

Individual Supporters
Courtney Allen | All Te Networks | Corine Locke | Tony Harris | Roderick Alsopp | Dr. Michelle Luard

🇬🇾 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today