Leader of the Opposition

Dec 28, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The prolonged failure of Speaker Manzoor Nadir to convene non-governmental Members of Parliament (MPs) for the election of a Leader of the Opposition under Article 184(1) of Guyana’s Constitution places the National Assembly at a constitutional crossroads. Despite MPs being sworn in at the opening of the 13th Parliament on November 3, 2025, WIN party leader Azruddin Mohamed—who heads the largest opposition bloc—remains unconfirmed in that office amid his U.S. indictment on gold smuggling, tax evasion, and money laundering charges. This delay, now spanning over seven weeks, invites judicial scrutiny, strains U.S.-Guyana relations, and tests the government’s commitment to democratic norms.

Constitutional mandate unambiguous

Article 184(1), as amended by Act No. 14 of 2000, imposes a clear duty on the Speaker: “The Leader of the Opposition shall be elected by and from among the non-governmental members of the National Assembly at a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Speaker.” The process is internal to the opposition, with the Speaker’s role limited to convening and presiding—without a vote—and notifying the President, whose appointment is formal and non-discretionary. No provision grants the Speaker discretion to delay based on foreign indictments; the office vacates only upon loss of seat, resignation, suspension under Article 156, or a no-confidence vote by a majority of non-government MPs.

WIN formally requested the meeting on November 3, when all opposition MPs were present at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, yet no action followed despite follow-up letters and a 14-day ultimatum. PNCR, AFC, and Forward Guyana have joined calls for compliance, warning of democratic erosion. Absent action, this fetters the opposition’s constitutional functions, including consultation on key appointments under Articles 225 and others.

Indictment No Bar to Office

Mr. Mohamed’s U.S. indictment, unsealed October 6, 2025, by a Florida grand jury, alleges a $50 million scheme involving wire fraud, conspiracy, and customs violations, with extradition sought under the 1924 U.S.-UK Treaty and Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act. However, an indictment establishes probable cause for charges, not guilt, and Guyana’s Constitution disqualifies MPs only upon conviction for offenses carrying over six months’ imprisonment—not mere allegations abroad. Attorney General Nandlall has confirmed no political immunity shields Mr. Mohamed from extradition, but this does not suspend parliamentary eligibility.

Regional precedent reinforces this: in Endell Thomas v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (PC 1982), the Privy Council struck down executive interference with constitutional tenure, emphasizing good-faith exercise of limited powers. Similarly, the CCJ in Attorney General v Joseph and Boyce (Barbados) mandated fidelity to constitutional text over political expediency. Ghana’s New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General (SC) and Australia’s Kable v DPP (NSW) (HCA) echo that electoral mandates yield only to explicit disqualification criteria. Stare decisis demands courts enforce such processes strictly.

Diplomatic and Political Tensions

The U.S. pressure—via sanctions, arrests, and extradition requests—creates a bind: cooperation honors treaty comity, yet blocking Mr. Mohamed’s election risks perceptions of Washington dictating Guyana’s parliamentary composition. Extradition hearings adjourned to November 24 underscore ongoing proceedings, but these operate parallel to domestic constitutional duties. Delaying the election undermines Guyana’s sovereignty claims, especially post-2025 elections where WIN’s 16 seats position it as the lead opposition.

Civil society protests and threats of judicial review signal rising stakes; WIN readies court action alleging breach of democratic rights. A High Court mandamus order could compel the Speaker, invoking separation of powers and Articles 153–155 on fundamental rights.

Judicial Pathways and Precedent

Litigation would test whether the delay constitutes unlawful fettering. Guyana’s Court of Appeal and CCJ, bound by stare decisis, would likely prioritize textualism: Conversation Tree analysis notes the framers’ intent for a “self-contained” process immune to “external manipulation.” CCJ appeals in Demerara Bank v Guyana and electoral cases affirm mandatory constitutional duties.

Recommended Resolution

The Speaker should convene the meeting forthwith, allowing non-government MPs to elect their leader per Article 184. The executive should advance extradition transparently via courts, decoupling criminal process from parliamentary roles. This upholds Guyana’s Constitution, reassures the U.S. of cooperation, and shields democracy from foreign-policy crossfire. Failure risks a CCJ escalation, eroding public trust amid oil wealth and regional scrutiny.

Guyana’s political culture must evolve beyond “complicating the simple,” as one commentator aptly observed—honoring the Constitution’s clarity fortifies institutions against all pressures.

Sincerely,
Fernando Balkaran, former Lecturer, UWI Cavehill Campus, & UG Turkeyen Campus.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, gold smuggling, Letters, Manzoor Nadir, opposition, tax evasion

---