The Speaker and parliamentary credibility

Jan 27, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, has now escalated an already volatile political situation by warning newly elected Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed on Monday that allegations of corruption he leveled against him could be referred to the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges. This move comes just hours after Mohamed’s election and follows weeks of controversy surrounding the Speaker’s own role in the delayed election of the opposition Leader.

While the Speaker has expressed outrage over what he described as “vile comments” from Mohamed accusing him of corruption, it must be said plainly: the Speaker himself has not been an innocent bystander in this unfolding saga. Only days ago, Nadir used a national platform to publicly label Mohamed a fugitive, while describing himself as being in a “difficult position” for having to oversee the appointment of a fugitive as the nation’s opposition leader. He even sought to draw parallel between Mohamed’s election and that of Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar. He said thusly: “If opposition members of Parliament feel it morally right to elect an international fugitive, then the stain on our Parliament and our country rests solely with them. This likelihood is unprecedented in our Westminster parliamentary system. Pablo Escobar, while he may be a role model for some, went down the route of becoming an Honourable Member of Parliament. Extortion, money laundering, terrorism, and trafficking were all associated with Pablo Escobar—just like the internationally indicted fugitive offender. Pablo Escobar also had a darling in the press.”

Those remarks were reckless, inflammatory and unbecoming of the nation’s top parliamentary referee. If the Speaker believes he is entitled to take offence at accusations levelled against him, then fairness demands that he acknowledges Mohamed’s equal right to challenge statements made about his character and eligibility. Instead, what Guyanese witnessed on Monday was not calm institutional leadership but a thinly veiled threat, one that appears less about protecting parliamentary decorum and more about continuing an effort to politically box in the newly elected Opposition Leader.

Therefore, Nadir’s warning of a possible Privileges Committee referral cannot be viewed in isolation. It comes after months of procedural delays that effectively paralysed the Opposition Leader appointment. And it comes after sustained criticism of his own conduct. In this context, the Speaker’s sudden zeal for discipline raises troubling questions about selective enforcement and political bias.

The Speaker’s primary duty is not to posture or lecture. It is to administer the rules of Parliament evenly, impartially and without fear or favour. Anything less undermines the credibility of the legislature itself. While this newspaper does not condone reckless or unsubstantiated allegations by any public official, we cannot ignore the alarming speed with which the Speaker moved to assert punitive authority, especially when his own conduct remains the subject of widespread public concern.

What is equally disturbing is the broader backdrop to this controversy. For nearly three months, Guyanese were forced to endure deliberate delays in electing a Leader of the Opposition. Before that, Parliament itself was effectively frozen following the September 1, 2025 elections, an unprecedented stagnation that crippled legislative oversight and democratic accountability, so much so that on Monday it was revealed that the government spent close to $19B from the Contingency Fund without approval.  These were not administrative mishaps. They were calculated acts of political obstruction that violated both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

Only after sustained pressure from international partners, civil society organisations and public outrage did movement finally occur. Yet instead of acknowledging these failures, the Speaker last week chose to attack diplomats who merely insisted that Guyana adhere to its constitutional obligations. That public outburst was diplomatically reckless and nationally embarrassing. The Speaker is not a prosecutor. He is not a political combatant. He is not an extension of the executive. He is the constitutional guardian of parliamentary order and fairness.

Now, by threatening Mohamed with the Privileges Committee, the Speaker risks further eroding public confidence in the independence of the National Assembly. The Committee of Privileges exists to protect the integrity of Parliament, not to be deployed as a political cudgel against inconvenient voices.

It is also worth reminding the Speaker of his own words to MPs on Monday about the importance of the Constitution, Standing Orders and parliamentary handbooks. These instruments exist precisely to prevent abuse of authority and concentration of power. They are not selective tools to be invoked only when criticism becomes uncomfortable. Guyanese deserve a Parliament that functions, not one mired in ego battles and political theatrics. They deserve leadership that prioritises national stability over personal vendettas. And they deserve a Speaker who understands that impartiality is not optional, it is the foundation of the office.

If the Speaker truly wishes to restore credibility to Parliament, the path forward is simple: stop the public grandstanding, abandon partisan rhetoric, respect constitutional norms, and allow the Opposition Leader to operate without intimidation. Anything less will deepen the crisis of trust already gripping Guyana’s democratic institutions.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, Editorial, Manzoor Nadir, parliament credibility, Speaker

---