Commentary on leader of opposition & paying MPs

Nov 03, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Mr. Neville Bissember (Oct 28) provided clarity on the appointment and role of the LOO under the British imposed constitution and the one from 1980 that emerged out of the rigged referendum of July 1978. He cited relevant articles and clauses of both constitutions to buttress his arguments, something few columnists and or letter writers tend to do. Bissember does not attack others unlike a few discredited columnists paid to pelt mud at others of integrity. He is also not jealous of those who have achieved higher academic credentials than himself unlike others who have been kicked out of universities for plagiarism and academic fraud.

Bissember points out some contradictions in the 1980 constitution and humbly seeks clarity on clauses.  He does not disagree that the incumbent government must continue in office after dissolution of parliament until after a new administration is sworn in following an election. As the AG, Anil Nandlall, had rightly stated, continuation of governance is a perk of incumbency. The incumbent government must continue in office until such time that a new administration is in place; a country can’t be without a government. It will also seem reasonable that the LOO remains in place until a new government has been sworn in. Should an outgoing LOO remain in office after a government is sworn in?

In Guyana, it is argued that a new LOO is sworn in after the new parliament meets, a full two months after the declaration of results. It is not permitted elsewhere, certainly not in the region.  A question posed by lawyers is when a new President, regardless of party, is sworn in and new Ministers are also sworn in following a new election, shouldn’t a new LOO also take office right after? Should a person, regardless of party, who is not elected from new elections (not announced as a member of the new assembly) continue his role as LOO until parliament meets? A LOO must be a member of parliament. If the outgoing LOO, who is not an elected MP, continue to hold office and be paid, why can’t other outgoing MPs (from all parties) also be paid till the new parliament is sworn in? Between dissolution of parliament and announcement of new MPs or swearing in of new parliament, the outgoing MPs continue to service their constituents? Several MPs in the outgoing parliament from both sides have not been elected to return in the new parliament and servicing constituencies.

After dissolution of parliament, MPs who are not in the executive are not paid. Is that fair when MPs who are members of the Executive continue to receive full salary? They can continue to represent their constituents. In most other countries, MPs are paid from swearing in till next swearing in of the new parliament and continue to service constituents.  In Guyana, following dissolution of the assembly and the non-payment of non-executive MPs (from ruling and opposition parties), it would mean they cease to represent constituents. It means for the period between dissolution of the parliament till the new parliament is sworn in, the public has no MP to represent or service them. Is that democratic and fair? Commonsense suggests that is undemocratic and unconstitutional. In almost every country, outgoing MPs or legislators continue to serve as the representative of their constituency until after the declaration of new elections. In USA, a legislator is elected in November (unless there is a special election) of an even year and sworn in the following January (2, 3). He continues to serve until the new parliament meets or when the election results are certified. The outgoing legislators in USA remain on the payroll and continues representation of constituents till the new Congress meets on January 2.

In Guyana, the LOO remains on the payroll until the new parliament meets and a new LOO is elected.  If the LOO can remain on the payroll as a constitutional representative of the country, with cabinet ranking, why can’t all opposition MPs and all government MPs who are not in the executive branch also be paid till the return of the new parliament?

MPs and or their constituents should file a constitutional question in court on representation and payment. If they do, I am confident the CCJ will rule in their favor if the high court and Court of Appeal rule against them. A similar case was adjudicated in 2002 in Trinidad and the Privy Council. Following a tied election, and the (undemocratic appointment) of Patrick Manning as PM, the Panday led UNC refused to attend parliament after its first sitting. Manning decided not to pay the UNC’s 18 MPs of their parliamentary remuneration (salary). The illustrious Guyanese Senior Counsel Fenton Ramsahoye challenged the non-payment of UNC MPs while government PNM MPs were paid including all perks. The high court and Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Manning government. Ramsahoye was confident of victory at Privy Council which unanimously overturned the lower court’s judgement. The Manning government had to pay the full salary of the UNC MPs plus interests

In Guyana, MPs from both sides, not serving in the executive, should challenge the law that denies the people representation and themselves payment. It is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram (PhD)

---

• Leader of Opposition, Letters, Neville Bissember

---