Krystal Hadassah Fisher v Guyana Elections Commission and the Attorney General Study General Attorney: Attorney General of Guyana

Procedural History and Statement of Facts

• Original Claim and Parties: The Appellant, Krystal Hadassah Fisher, representing the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), initiated legal proceedings following the 2025 General and Regional Elections. The Respondents in the matter are the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the Attorney General of Guyana.

• The Election Grievance: The Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) contested the 2025 General and Regional Elections. However, the party failed to submit candidate lists for Regions 7, 8, and 9. As a result of this failure to comply with statutory requirements, the party was excluded from the ballots in those specific regions.

• Fixed Date Application: Fisher filed a 'Fixed Date Application' in the High Court of Guyana. This application challenged the constitutionality of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), rather than filing a traditional election petition. The Appellant maintained that the goal was to vindicate constitutional rights and seek declaratory relief, not to nullify the election results.

• High Court Ruling (29 August 2025): The Chief Justice dismissed the Appellant’s claim.

• Court of Appeal Ruling (15 October 2025): The Court of Appeal dismissed Fisher’s appeal. The court ruled that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of Article 163 of the Constitution, which governs election petitions, and was therefore not properly brought as a constitutional challenge. Costs were awarded against the Appellant.

• Current Appeal: Fisher has now appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Issues for Determination

• Jurisdictional Error: Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by confining the Appellant’s claim strictly to Article 163 jurisdiction and whether the claim actually amounted to an election petition.

• Justiciability of Constitutional Questions: Whether the claim raised a justiciable constitutional question regarding the right to vote and whether the relief sought effectively sought to nullify the elections.

• ROPA and Electoral Choices: Whether the statutory scheme under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) produced materially different electoral choices across various regions.

• Suffrage and Discrimination: Whether the exclusion of certain candidate lists resulted in unequal suffrage, geographic discrimination, or vote dilution.

• Regional Burdens: Whether the statutory framework imposed disproportionate or disparate impacts and burdens specifically on smaller hinterland regions (Regions 7-9).

• Constitutional Interpretation of Article 160: Whether Article 160 was misapplied by the lower court, resulting in an unlawful diminution of constitutional rights as guaranteed by other articles.

• Conditional Nature of the Franchise: Whether the right to vote is an absolute right or a conditional one subject to statutory qualifications, procedures, and party choices.

• International Law Applicability: Whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically Article 25, is applicable to this matter.

• Cost Awards: Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly awarded costs against the Appellant.

Appellant’s Submissions (Krystal Hadassah Fisher)

• Constitutional Claim vs. Election Petition: The Appellant submits that her Fixed Date Application was a constitutional challenge to ROPA, not an election petition. She argues that the Court of Appeal erred by forcing the claim into Article 163 jurisdiction. The relief sought was declaratory to vindicate rights, not to overturn the election.

• Right to Vote and Equal Suffrage: Under Articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution, the right to vote is a substantive right that includes the right to a meaningful choice. The Appellant contends that excluding FGM from Regions 7–9 diminished voter choice and distorted the system of proportional representation, thereby infringing on the principle of equal suffrage.

• Structural Barriers and Disparate Impact: The Appellant argues that ROPA creates structural barriers by requiring candidate lists in every region. This imposes a disproportionate burden on smaller hinterland regions. The resulting exclusion of parties in these areas leads to geographic discrimination and vote dilution, violating Articles 59, 149, and 159.

• Hierarchy of Constitutional Articles: The Appellant submits that Article 160 must be read as subject to the guarantees provided in Articles 59, 149, and 159. The argument is that Parliament cannot use ordinary legislation (like ROPA) to diminish fundamental constitutional rights. The Appellant seeks to have the costs order set aside, arguing the claim was a legitimate constitutional inquiry.

Respondents’ Submissions (GECOM and the Attorney General)

• Exclusivity of Article 163: The Respondents argue that the appeal is misconceived and jurisdictionally defective. They maintain that any challenge touching the validity of an election MUST be pursued via an election petition under Article 163 in the High Court. Because the relief sought would effectively nullify election results in certain regions, it falls squarely within this exclusive jurisdiction.

• Statutory Compliance and Lawful Exclusion: The Respondents contend that FGM was excluded from the ballots in Regions 7–9 solely because they failed to submit candidate lists as required by ROPA sections 11–13. They argue the statutory scheme is applied equally to all political parties. Therefore, any differential outcome or lack of choice in those regions was a direct result of the party’s own failure to comply, not state discrimination.

• Conditional Franchise: The Respondents submit that the right to vote is not absolute; it is conditional and subject to statutory qualifications and procedural requirements. They argue that since no constitutional infringement occurred, the Appellant’s reliance on Article 25 of the ICCPR is misplaced and irrelevant to the domestic constitutional framework.

• Justification of Costs: The Respondents maintain that the costs order was properly awarded. They describe the claim as misconceived and a waste of judicial resources that necessitated unnecessary legal response from the state and the elections commission.

Relief Sought by the Parties

• Appellant’s Desired Relief:

  • A declaration that ROPA unlawfully restricted voter choice and diminished constitutional rights.

  • A declaration that the exclusion of FGM from ballots in Regions 7-9 was unconstitutional and void.

  • An order setting aside the Court of Appeal judgment dated 15 October 2025.

  • An order setting aside the costs order issued by the Court of Appeal.

  • Any further relief the Court deems just.

• Respondents’ Desired Relief:

  • An order dismissing the appeal in its entirety.

  • A declaration that the claim was a challenge to the validity of elections and was properly confined to Article 163 jurisdiction.

  • A declaration that ROPA was lawfully applied and the exclusion of FGM was valid.

  • An order affirming the Court of Appeal judgment of 15 October 2025.

  • An order that the Appellant pays the Respondents’ costs.

Legal Authorities Cited

• Joseph v Reynolds (CCJ, 2018): Cited by the Appellant to illustrate the distinction between pure constitutional claims and election petitions.

• Reynolds v Sims (USSC, 1964): Cited as persuasive authority regarding the principle of equal suffrage and "one person, one vote."

• AG v Joseph and Boyce (CCJ, 2006): Cited by both parties; the Appellant uses it to support constitutional supremacy, while the Respondents use it regarding jurisdictional boundaries.

• Suratt v AG of Trinidad and Tobago (CCJ, 2007): Cited by both parties concerning principles of constitutional interpretation and the nature of rights.

• Persaud v Reid (Guyana CA, 1999): Cited by Respondents to support the exclusivity of election petition jurisdiction.

• Reid v GECOM (Guyana HC, 2011): Cited by Respondents regarding the legality of excluding parties for non-compliance with ROPA.

• Representation of the People Act (ROPA): Specifically sections 11, 12, and 13 concerning the submission of candidate lists.

• The Constitution of Guyana: Specifically Articles 59 (Right to vote), 149 (Protection from discrimination), 159 (Qualifications/Disqualifications for voting), 160 (Electoral system legislation), and 163 (Jurisdiction of High Court regarding validity of elections).