The electorate’s sovereignty is supreme

Jan 24, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is a particular breed of concern that flourishes best in parliamentary corridors. It is the discovery of conscience when there is nothing to discover. It manifests in solemn statements, faux-outrage, and ritualized hand-wringing over what is, in fact, a procedural inevitability.

The current spectacle surrounding the election of the Leader of the Opposition is precisely that.  It is not a crisis of governance, not a moral emergency, but what is seen as pussyfooting when it comes to exercise of the electorate’s will.

The electorate gave 109,000 plus votes to AZMO. That allows him to be in pole position for appointment of Leader of the Opposition. Except that the simple process of electing him has been inexcusably delayed for months.

It is true that AZMO has been indicted by a court in the United States. But he has not been convicted. Indictment is accusation, not adjudication; suspicion, not certainty.

Yet the naysayers, those who would meddle in the machinery of parliamentary process, treat the mere existence of an indictment as sufficient reason to pause, to interfere, to frustrate the legal and democratic momentum that follows an election. And now we find this this obstructionism is being dressed up in the language of conscience.

Those entrusted with managing the formal appointment of the Leader of the Opposition are not called upon to render judgments on foreign indictments. Their charge is narrower, yet more consequential. They are charged with implementing the Constitution faithfully and without prejudice.

The Constitution of Guyana sets out the precise conditions under which a person may be disqualified from the National Assembly. A member is disqualified if they are under sentence of death, serving imprisonment exceeding six months, under a substituted sentence of comparable length, or serving a suspended sentence of imprisonment for more than six months. That is the extent of it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Silence reigns in the rules of the National Assembly when it comes to the matter of charges or indictments. Standing Orders, the procedural lexicon of the Assembly, do not invent disqualifications out of moral discomfort. Yet, here we are: a parade of concern, a chorus of hesitation, all premised not on law but on sentiment.

If any official finds the process troubling to their conscience, resignation is available. They may bow out with dignity. What they may not do, under the cover of conscience, is hold up the machinery of democracy to negotiate their comfort. That would be neither honourable nor lawful.

Let us recall precedent. In 2018, a sitting Member of the National Assembly was charged and placed before the courts. That member did not vacate the seat. The Constitution was obeyed; the Assembly functioned; governance continued. The fact that a swathe of criminal charges did not disqualify a sitting member is a glaring, inconvenient reminder that the rules do not change with the beneficiary of those rules.

Yet now, it is convenient to pretend that AZMO’s indictment, overseas and unproven, is somehow a moral stumbling block. It is not. It is a pretext.

At the heart of this charade lies an unsettling disrespect for the electorate. One hundred and nine thousand Guyanese voted for AZMO. Their choice is not advisory; it is sovereign. To insinuate that procedural actors should second-guess that decision because some external indictment exists is to arrogate to oneself the authority of the people. It is the audacity of bureaucratic paternalism, masquerading as morality. The electorate’s sovereignty is supreme. No foreign indictment, no personal discomfort, no invented rule may displace it.

If anyone’s conscience is genuinely troubled by the prospect of conducting an ordinary duty under the Constitution, the remedy is resignation, not delay. To stall is to substitute private scruple for public obligation. Democracy is not a seminar in propriety; it is a system of rules, procedures, and the occasional discomfort that attends obedience.

AZMO is eligible. He may sit. He may lead the Opposition. To pretend otherwise is to engage in the charade of principle.

In a parliamentary democracy, the law is not malleable to sentiment, nor is process negotiable according to discomfort. It is fixed, precise, and inconveniently real. To delay the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition under the cover of conscience is not moral vigilance. It is the art of excusing delay with the syntax of moral indignation.

And so, if anyone finds their conscience incapable of executing the duties required by law, let them resign. If not, let the Constitution be applied as written, the Assembly move forward, and the people’s choice be honoured.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• AZMO, electorate, Leader of the Opposition, National Assembly, Peeping Tom, sovereignty

---