High Court Tosses UDP’s Red Color Challenge After Seven-Month Legal Battle

It was the talk of the town leading up to the 2025 general election, intraparty color wars. Red became the center of controversy after it was assigned to two factions within the United Democratic Party. U.D.P. Leader Moses ‘Shyne’ Barrow, and Deputy Leader Alberto August, weren’t having it. They took the Elections and Boundaries Commission and even the Attorney General to court over the decision. Just nine days before voters headed to the polls, Barrow filed for leave to seek a judicial review. They asked, should members of the Alliance for Democracy be allowed to use the color red? Fast forward seven months after filing, the High Court has dismissed the application. Today, the attorney for the Elections and Boundaries Commission broke down what caused the delay and explained the reasoning behind the ruling.

 

Hector Guerra, Attorney-at-law

“The judge’s finding focused on two primary points, the first had to do with the mootness of the challenge. The challenge by the time it came up for challenge was already moot. So, the decision was handed down by the elections and boundaries department on the twenty-fifth. Mr. August and Barrow filed a claim for judicial review early march. They filed a claim but did not push it. Elections were held on the twelfth of March. The results were that the PUP came out victorious winning twenty-six of the thirty-one seats. Despite filling the claim on the third of March, they did not serve it on the Elections and Boundaries Commission and the Attorney General Ministry until early April. So more than a month had elapsed since the filing of the claim, and a significant amount of time had passed since the election was held, and parliament had reconvened. They then, after being promoted by the judge, as to whether they would pursue the claim after the election, decided they would amend the claim in July. So, the judge claimed that in view of those circumstances and what was being challenged was the use of color in an election which had already been held, in an election for which results had been declared, meant that the claim was entirely moot. Point number two the court held that in the circumstances I just outlined the claimants were entirely delayed in prosecuting their claims.”