Latest update September 26th, 2026 10:20 AM
Latest News
- ‘No more plundering, no more exploitation’ – UN Chief says resource wealth must benefit producing countries
- Lindsayca bids US$493M for NGL facility as Chinese firm offers US$28M
- Allies unite behind Saudi Arabia as more Iranian flights restricted
- Pres. Ali defends MV Barima salvage process, says bids being re-evaluated
- Finance Minister warns contractors of liquidated damages over project delays
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Article 110 (1) of our Constitution states rather baldly: “There shall be an office of the Leader of the Opposition, election to which office shall be in accordance with Art. 184.” This had been altered after the changes effected in 2000 from the 1980 version, which had proposed, “There shall be an office of Minority Leader and appointments thereto shall be made by the President”.
However, while the institution of the office existed, the paraphernalia to enable that office to exercise its mandate had until recently not been provided. As part of the ‘new dispensation’ following the elections of November 2011, it was therefore quite a positive development when a building and staff were allocated to the “Office of the Leader of the Opposition” (OLO).
In a news item carried in this newspaper last Sunday, the leader of the Opposition expressed some displeasure that his new office was being starved of funds. In addition to the rental not being paid, wages for security were also lagging. Mr Granger posited that it appeared the government’s actions were a deliberate attempt to stifle the work of the opposition.
A letter the following day from an official on APNU’s staff was somewhat more specific. He revealed that in addition to the provision of office space and security, the OLO also had been given “5 staff members; a gardener, a secretary, a driver, a receptionist and one other staff.” But he also pointed out that OLO “has no access to state vehicles, no budget, and pays its own light, telephone and water bill.”
If the above facts are correct, then there is definitely the need for some further changes to be effectuated so that the OLO can perform its constitutionally mandated functions. We do not believe that many Guyanese will break a lance over the APNU Official’s adumbration of those functions: “holding the Executive accountable; developing an organized approach to and representing the views of, the people, opinion leaders and nongovernmental organizations; ensuring that there is freedom of access to information and the media; adequately representing in the national assembly and generally, the interest and concerns of the people.”
As to the level of staffing and budget that might be necessary to fund those activities, there will obviously be the need for the government and the Opposition to arrive at an overall consensus on the specific funding needs and for this to be fine tuned by the Ministry of Finance’s Budget Office. As it is, the APNU Official’s assertion that “The office of the Leader of the Opposition should by necessity be funded like a small government ministry with its own budget and a full, complement of staff,” sounds somewhat ominous, in light of the Opposition’s own criticism of the funding levels of its doppelganger, Office of the President.
Neighbouring Trinidad holds out a reasonable model. The website of the “Office of The Leader of The Opposition” declares as its mission: “To provide the Leader of the Opposition with professional research assistance and advanced secretarial support in the execution of his official duties.” It explains that “The post of Leader of the Opposition is a Parliamentary Office created by the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Thus, it must be provided with essential support services and resources vital to its existence. The Office of the Parliament facilitates this process. All staff members are political appointments.”
The T&T’s OLO has the following staff: legal counsel, chief economist, research specialist, information specialist, office aide, clerical assistant, janitor, driver and maid. We think it is infra dig for it to be even argued that the state ought not to pay for the utilities of the OLO. In terms of vehicles etc. we believe these should be capped under the same rationale that the Opposition have used to go after the fringe benefits of the formers presidents’ pensions.
In addition, we also proposed that the MPs representing the geographical constituencies also ought to be provided with office space and staff to execute their duties.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.