Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, has strongly defended Guyana’s electoral architecture against a constitutional challenge seeking to allow independent candidates to run for Parliament.
The challenge, brought by attorney and chartered accountant Christopher Ram, argued that the Constitution permits individual candidacies and that the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) is unconstitutional for excluding such a mechanism.
But in a comprehensive response filed in the Demerara High Court, Nandlall contended that the legal and constitutional framework is intentionally and explicitly designed around a party-list proportional representation (PR) system and that any attempt to introduce independent candidates would require constitutional reform – not judicial intervention.
“The Constitution, properly construed, establishes a system of proportional representation predicated upon a party-list system for the election of members to the National Assembly,” Nandlall submitted. “It confers no right nor creates a mechanism for independent or individual candidates to contest without being part of a list.”
Ram has maintained that Article 160(2)(a) of the Constitution supports the right of citizens to run independently and that RoPA violates this right by failing to provide a supporting framework. But Nandlall flatly rejected this interpretation as legally flawed and historically uninformed.
He reminded the court that Guyana transitioned from a First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system to a Proportional Representation (PR) model in 1964—a move solidified by extensive constitutional reform in 1999, which involved political parties, civil society, and international experts. These reforms, he noted, led to Articles 60 and 160, which cement the party-list framework.
“This narrative is historically and legally unfounded,” the Attorney General said of Ram’s argument. “The people’s will is primarily expressed in the text of the Constitution, and secondarily, through the Acts of their representatives in Parliament.”
He further clarified that Article 160(2)(a), cited by Ram, does not permit individual candidacies. Instead, the article restricts candidacy to individuals who associate themselves with a single list.
“The words ‘and only one’… emphasise the connection of the person with one of the lists and not standing as an independent individual,” Nandlall argued, describing Ram’s reading as a “cherry-picking” of the text.
The Attorney General noted that even Ram’s own affidavit acknowledged the absence of a mechanism for independent candidates, which he said supports rather than undermines the constitutionality of the current system.
To reinforce his argument, Nandlall cited several rulings from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), including Ali and Jagdeo v David, Cedric Richardson, and Sarah Browne, which affirm the legitimacy of the party-list system.
In the Sarah Browne case, the CCJ held:
“The system does not entitle an elector to cast a vote for any particular candidate. Ballots are cast in secret for a list of candidates… The extracted persons are only then considered and are declared to be elected members of Parliament.”
This, Nandlall argued, is entirely incompatible with the notion of independent candidates.
“An ‘independent candidate’ scenario does not fit into this extraction model at all,” he stated. “Seats belong to lists—by extension, to parties—which then choose individuals to occupy them.”
While acknowledging the importance of democratic participation, Nandlall stressed that such involvement must function within the structure of the Constitution.
“Democracy in Guyana’s constitutional and legislative context means a party-list representative system, rather than the concentration of power in an individual,” he submitted.
He further noted that international human rights law allows countries to impose reasonable restrictions on electoral participation based on their chosen system. “The right to be elected is not absolute,” he said. “It is subject to qualifications, and Guyana has chosen a party-list model.”
In conclusion, Nandlall urged the court to dismiss Ram’s constitutional challenge in its entirety and uphold the current electoral framework.
“Every Guyanese citizen has the right to form or join a political party or list and to seek election under that banner,” he said. “This is democracy by party-list design, and it is the system the people have chosen and legislatively passed. It does not accommodate one-man candidacies, and that is by deliberate design, not inadvertence or oppression.”
The matter remains before the court for a ruling.
