Blog

It is with profound sadness that I learned of the passing of Sir Garfield Sobers, one of the greatest cricketers the world has ever known and an outstanding ambassador for Barbados, the Caribbean, and the game of cricket.
While Sir Garfield’s legendary achievements on the cricket field earned him worldwide admiration, I was privileged to witness another side of this remarkable Caribbean icon. During my tenure as Minister of tourism, industry and commerce, I attended the World Travel Market in London, where the Guyana tourism booth was situated alongside the Barbados booth. It was there that I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Garfield Sobers, who graciously took the time to promote not only Barbados but also Guyana as a tourism destination.
His willingness to champion Guyana on the international stage spoke volumes about the man he was. Sir Garfield understood that the success of one Caribbean nation contributes to the strength and prosperity of the entire region. He embodied the true spirit of Caribbean unity, always extending his influence and goodwill beyond the borders of his homeland.
I fondly remember his warmth, humility, and genuine enthusiasm in engaging with visitors, encouraging them to discover the beauty, culture, and hospitality of Guyana. Those moments remain a testament to his character and his unwavering belief in the Caribbean’s collective potential.
Sir Garfield Sobers was not only a sporting legend but also a true patriot for the Caribbean. His legacy transcends cricket, leaving behind an enduring example of excellence, humility, regional cooperation, and service.
On behalf of myself and my family, I extend sincere condolences to the Government and people of Barbados, Sir Garfield’s loved ones, and cricket fans across the world. May they find comfort in celebrating an extraordinary life that inspired generations and strengthened the bonds of our Caribbean family.
Sir Garfield Sobers’ legacy will forever remain etched in the hearts of Caribbean people, and his contributions to sport and regional unity will never be forgotten.
May his soul rest in eternal peace.

Manniram Prashad
Former Tourism,
Industry & Commerce
Minister

The post Tribute to Sir Garfield Sobers appeared first on Guyana Times.

…now seeks constitutional ruling for future elections only

After initially asking the court to declare the September 1, 2025, elections “null, void, and of no legal effect” if the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) were excluded from the ballot in certain regions, the Attorney for FGM candidate Krystal Fisher, Dr Vivian Williams, on Thursday reversed course, urging the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to treat the matter solely as a constitutional motion for future elections, with no impact on the 2025 polls. However, attorneys for respondents in the case, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and the Attorney General (AG) argued that to do so would set a dangerous precedent.
In the initial ruling before the High Court in August 2025 the litigant sought the court’s relief in having “an order restraining the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)… from proceeding with the conduct of the forthcoming General and Regional Elections unless and until the FGM… was duly included on the ballots in all ten (10) electoral regions.”

However, Williams on Thursday adjusted his approach and asked the court to simply address the issue of constitutional rights, its bearing on future elections and simply disregard previous filings about overturning the 2025 elections.
“There will be no consequence for the elections that has already been held. The results would stand; nothing would change. The holding of Elections is peripheral, and in fact, it is the determination of the matter, even though the elections has concluded, as a significant function that the court ought to exercise,” Williams noted.
Dr Williams appeared to have yet again modified his argument following the previous ruling by the Court of Appeal (COA) that reliefs being sought in the case would need to be dealt with in an elections petition, over which only the High Court has jurisdiction. In its ruling in October 2025, the COA ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the reliefs sought by the appellant since it sought to bring into question the legality of the 2025 elections.

“Playing with fire”
Attorney for GECOM, Anthony Astaphan, cautioned that the court could be “playing with fire” to go down such a road as to disregard the original reliefs sought and now determine the case as a constitutional motion. “The case started out as a challenge to the intended elections. There was a declaration saying, ‘A declaration of any election held without the inclusion of all political parties on the ballot that has satisfied the legal requirements to contest the national elections are null, void, and of no legal effect.’ That is a challenge to the election. So he wanted to stop it,” Astaphan recalled.
“I would suggest that we keep in mind the procedures for invoking the elections jurisdiction of the court because if you are saying a system has issues depriving citizens of their right to vote, then to bypass it and come with a constitutional motion that has no credible, relevant, objective relief for rectifying the elections results, I think, is playing with fire. It would open a gate for horses to run through… Whether or not the framework for registration or voting violates a constitutional provision, that should be sorted out during the hearing of the elections petition.”
Astaphan also warned about the ripple effect of such a move.
“I think that is also very, very important. The other note of caution I have is to be careful about creating an avenue to bypass the election laws of the country and the constitutional requirements that we have that the High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with a variety of different matters. To make a determination as to whether something triggers the elections’ jurisdiction of the court, it has to look at what was in fact pleaded and what was sought in the application made, and not by counsel saying, ‘Oh, we will go through the process now, but we’re not going to ask for any relief,’ and so on,” Astaphan noted. Also touching on the point of jurisdiction, AG Anil Nandlall warned that the issues addressed in Fisher’s case are issues that need to be dealt with in an elections petition.
Making his point, Nandlall referenced the 1973 case of Seecomar Singh et anor v R C Butler and the 1968 case of Gladys Petrie vs the Attorney General. “Once it activates a process that affects the legality of an election, then the matter assumes a different character… I dare say, respectfully, that if you interfere with this sacred and central principle, we will run into problems in actions being filed ante-elections. Politically these matters have been settled in the Caribbean, and I will go through cases to show where the court has repeatedly said, ‘Wait until the elections have concluded.’ The matter first arose in Petrie,” Nandlall noted.

Provisions well settled
“The Court of Appeal and High Court were frontally asked to make orders that would have the effect of setting aside elections. In the High Court there were injunctions that sought to restrain GECOM from proceeding with the elections. Issues that fall within the parameters of the provisions of Article 163 of the constitution. The provisions of 163 are well settled.”
The appellant in the case, Fisher, is a Region Nine resident and FGM national candidate. She is challenging GECOM’s long-standing practice of excluding political parties from ballots in regions where they have not submitted geographical constituency lists. The filing contends that this practice violates citizens’ constitutional right to vote for a party of their choice.
Under Guyana’s electoral system, the 65 seats in the National Assembly are distributed, with 40 filled based on votes from a National Top-Up List and 25 allocated through geographical constituency representation. Political parties must submit both a National Top-Up List and respective Geographical Constituency Lists to contest the elections; however, parties only need to submit a minimum of six of the 10 constituencies in order to be approved to contest the national elections.

No submission but then complaining
The legal challenge revolves around GECOM’s exclusion of FGM from ballots in Regions Seven, Eight, and Nine, areas where the party did not submit geographical constituency lists.
On this issue Astaphan argued, “It is not a question of fault; it’s a question of not electing to submit a list then complaining of being denied a right by GECOM. My point is the legislation gives you a right to contest or not to contest. It gives the party the legal choice.” However, Dr Williams is arguing that the Constitution does not provide any provisions to empower the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) to restrict political parties desirous of contesting the national elections.
“This appeal ultimately turns on one question: where does the law authorise the exclusion of an approved national list on the ballot of some regions but not others? The respondents say that authority is found in the Representation of the People Act. If the law authorises a restriction on the franchise by preventing electors in some regions from voting for an approved nationalist available to other electors elsewhere, the source of that authority must be found in the Constitution itself. Constitutional rights cannot be diminished by implication or by ordinary legislation acting without constitutional warrant,” Williams argued.
“The Act in no way provides that an approved national list must be excluded from the ballot because no geographical constituency list has been submitted for that region. The respondent construction depends on words that Parliament did not enact. The two questions that determine this appeal, therefore, are two distinct parts and questions. The first is whether the Constitution authorises Parliament to enact the restriction complained of and whether Parliament, through the representation of the act, in fact enacted those restrictions.”
At the core of the arguments of both sides are the interpretations of articles contained in Guyana’s Constitution and ROPA. From the Constitution, sections at the heart of the arguments include Article 13, which speaks to inclusionary democracy; Article 59, which enshrines a Guyanese citizen’s right to vote; Article 159, which places conditions and limitations on eligibility for a citizen’s right to vote; and Article 160, which outlines that voters cast their votes for a list of candidates and not individuals. Sections 39 and 11 of the Representation of the People’s Act we also cited.
In her original application before the High Court, Fisher asked the court to declare that this incident violates Articles 13, 59, and 159 of the Constitution, as well as a denial of her right, as a candidate, to ballot access and to contest in the elections.
Thursday’s hearing was presented before CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Justice Denys Barrow, Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji, and Justice Arif Bulkan.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Anderson informed the parties the matter will be subsequently notified of a date for the ruling in the matter.

The post FGM backtracks at CCJ, abandons bid calling to void 2025 elections appeared first on Guyana Times.

Dear Editor,
July 17, 2026 marked the 62nd anniversary of the assassination of Michael Forde, a prominent 22-year-old Progressive Youth Organisation (PYO) activist and a key leader of the historic February 1964 Freedom Marches. Forde was killed in a targeted bombing at Freedom House – the headquarters of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – marking a tragedy that compounded an already devastating week for his family following the death of his father just days prior.
The bombing occurred during one of the most volatile eras in Guyana’s pre-independence history. In 1964, the colony (then British Guiana) was paralysed by intense political rivalry between Premier Dr Cheddi Jagan’s ruling PPP and the opposition People’s National Congress (PNC), led by Forbes Burnham. These domestic political fault lines took on deep ethnic dimensions and were heavily exacerbated by external Cold War pressures.

It was against this backdrop of national crisis that a young man entered the Progressive Bookshop, located on the ground floor of Freedom House, carrying a small cardboard carton. After placing the box on a bookshelf, the suspect purchased a book and hurriedly fled the premises, leaving behind both the package and his monetary change.
Forde, an employee at the bookshop, immediately alerted the manager, Euna Mulzack, an American citizen residing in Guyana. Forde noted the customer’s suspicious behaviour and the abandoned item.
Sensing immediate danger, Mulzack instructed Forde to remove the package from the building. Fearing for the lives of roughly 60 party executives meeting on the upper floor, Forde grabbed the device and rushed toward the eastern side exit to discard it. Before he could reach safety, the bomb detonated in his hands.
The force of the explosion killed Forde instantly, shattering the shopfront and hurling a portion of his left hand roughly 50 yards away near the Metropole Cinema. His ultimate sacrifice prevented the bomb from decimating the entire building, likely saving the lives of the party leadership.
Approximately 40 individuals inside Freedom House survived with various injuries, including several prominent political figures:
First Lady Janet Jagan, wife of Premier Dr Cheddi Jagan, escaped with minor injuries to her hands.
Euna Mulzack, the bookshop manager, sustained severe eye damage.
Mary Nunes, wife of then-Education Minister Cedric Nunes, was among the wounded.
Miss Bispat suffered a suspected fractured spine, while Patricia Christian also sustained injuries in the attack.
Just minutes after the Freedom House blast, a second bomb detonated 400 metres away at GIMPEX, the trading arm of the PPP, underscoring the coordinated nature of the day’s terror.
Later that year, constitutional changes imposed by Great Britain introduced a system of proportional representation, which unseated the PPP and permanently altered Guyana’s path to its 1966 independence. The tragic death of Michael Forde remains an enduring symbol of the severe human cost of that political transition.

Yours sincerely,
Neil Kumar

The post 62nd anniversary of the assassination of Michael Forde appeared first on Guyana Times.

Before the CCJ even opens its file – as just promised – on July 29, your Eyewitness can hear the collective sigh from you, dear readers, and the wider public, who’ve followed Sanction Man’s OFAC-requested extradition saga for gold smuggling and other sundry related crimes!! Not because the legal issues are unimportant – they are – but because every mile of the judicial road seems to produce another roundabout!!
This time Sanction Man’s legal touts challenged the Minister of Home Affairs’ authority to proceed (ATP) with the US extradition request. Why?? The Minister was biased!! Can you believe this?? Well, the Magistrate, High and Appeals Courts didn’t – so we’ll hear what the CCJ’s gonna say!! If the argument is accepted in the broadest sense, perhaps every extradition request should now come with a certificate confirming that the Minister has never formed an opinion, read a newspaper, watched television, or heard a rumour about the person involved??
Your Eyewitness almost expects Sanction Man’s next submission to be that the official stationery was folded at the wrong angle, rendering the entire process constitutionally suspect!! Not on all fours!! Now don’t get your Eyewitness wrong – of course the courts must examine every legal challenge. That’s what distinguishes the rule of law from the rule of convenience, and procedural fairness ain’t just a technicality – it’s a cornerstone of justice!!
But there’s an equally old legal tradition: proceedings gotta eventually proceed – or it ain’t no proceeding!! To avoid being fitted with that orange jumpsuit, Sanction Man has converted every straight legal line into a labyrinth!! Procedural junctions are created for another hearing, another appeal, another constitutional question, and another application to determine whether the previous application was properly applied for!! If delay – not relay!! – were an Olympic event Sanction Man would be getting enough gold medals to trigger another customs evasion!!
You can’t ignore the irony. OFAC’s allegations concern an international gold-smuggling scheme, yet the most remarkable extraction taking place has been the steady extraction of time from the judicial system!! Lawyers insist each challenge raises serious legal questions. Remember 34 is less than 33?? They’re paid to be creative!! But Harry Public is entitled to wonder whether justice has become a relay race – where the baton is never actually passed to the finish line!!
On July 29, the CCJ ain’t deciding guilt or innocence, just a concocted procedural issue. Frankly, your Eyewitness just wants the case to reach the courts to settle the substantive issues!!
They say justice delayed is justice denied. But in Guyana, Sanction Man has made justice not merely delayed – but taken up permanent residence in the departure lounge, continually announcing that boarding will commence shortly!!
While somehow never leaving the gate (to that Miami penitentiary!!)

…against lax contractors
The Government’s taken a lot of flak for several contracts given out in its infrastructural drive that just didn’t meet their contractual deadlines. “Friends and family” is the standard opposition derisive explanation for this phenomenon!! But what do they say about the long-promised New Amsterdam and the Paediatric and Maternal (PAM) hospital at Goedverwagting/Ogle??
Two years ago, Pressie exploded about the failure of the contractor to keep to the schedule for completing the PAM! It was the first project to come out of an MoU between Guyana and Austria. The €149 million (GY$31.9 billion) contract – funded by a British loan facility – had been signed on June 8, 2022, with work starting the following year. The Austrian Government-chosen contractor VAMED Engineering was later acquired by a German hospital construction company. So much for Teutonic efficiency!!
Well, it seems the Govt has finally said that enough after another two years!! They stopped payments last year, and to VAMED’s threat of international arbitration, they’ve responded, “Bring it on!!”

…for colonialism?
After Argentina whupped the Brits in their World Cup semi-finals, the Argentines displayed a banner announcing the Malvinas/Falklands are theirs. FIFA’s investigating the importation of politics. But England just responded that the Falklands remain theirs!!
Shouldn’t THEY be investigated??

The post Justice…hobbled appeared first on Guyana Times.