APNU’s position was consistent and lawful

Jan 28, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Much noise has been made about the election of the Leader of the Opposition, but stripped of the propaganda and political theatre, the issue is actually very simple. The APNU took a clear, principled position from the start: it would not nominate anyone for the post of Leader of the Opposition because the electorate had already decided where that office should go.

From the results of the General Elections, it was obvious which opposition party held the largest number of seats outside the government. The APNU therefore concluded that the Leader of the Opposition should come from that party. On that basis, it saw no reason to compete for the position, interfere with the process, or manufacture a contest where none was required.

Once that position was taken, the rest followed naturally. When only one nominee emerged—namely the candidate of the WIN party—the APNU accepted that nominee as the sole candidate. Under established parliamentary practice, where there is only one nominee for an office, there is no need for a vote. The nominee is declared elected unopposed.

This is not some novel invention or local trick. It is standard Westminster parliamentary practice.

Across Westminster-style parliaments, whether in the Caribbean, the United Kingdom, or other Commonwealth jurisdictions, the rule is straightforward: where there is a single nominee, no vote is taken. Voting is only required when there is a contest. A vote is a mechanism to resolve competing claims. Where there is no competition, the process is administrative, not adversarial.

That is why Speakers, Deputy Speakers, committee chairs, and other parliamentary officers are routinely declared elected unopposed once nominations close and only one name stands. No one demands a “symbolic vote” simply for show. Procedure is not theatre.

Guyana’s own parliamentary rules reflect this logic. The Standing Orders of the National Assembly provide: “In any matter not herein provided for, resort shall be had to the usage and practice of the Commons of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which must be followed as far as the same may be applicable to the Assembly, and not inconsistent with these Standing Orders or with the practice of the Assembly.”

The Constitution of Guyana also supports this interpretation. While the Constitution outlines how the Leader of the Opposition is identified and recognised, it does not mandate a vote in circumstances where there is only one nominee. The Constitution assumes good-faith parliamentary conduct and leaves procedural detail to the Standing Orders and accepted parliamentary conventions.

In other words, neither the Constitution nor the Standing Orders compel MPs to participate in a vote where no contest exists. There is no constitutional crisis in recognising an uncontested nominee.

It was in this context that APNU parliamentarians left the Assembly after it became clear that there was no other nominee besides the WIN candidate. From APNU’s perspective, the matter had already been settled. The nominee would automatically become Leader of the Opposition by operation of the rules. Staying behind for a non-event would have served no legal or procedural purpose.

This walkout has since been deliberately misrepresented.

The PPPC and its usual sidekicks have tried to spin the issue as though APNU had reservations about WIN’s nominee or was secretly unwilling to support that candidate. That claim simply does not withstand scrutiny. If APNU had wanted to block or undermine the WIN nominee, it could have nominated its own candidate and forced a vote. It did not do so. Instead, it stood aside entirely.

You cannot at the same time refuse to nominate a candidate and be accused of opposing the only nominee. The two positions are logically incompatible.

What we are witnessing is not a dispute about rules, but a familiar exercise in political storytelling. The government side needs a controversy, so it invents one. It needs to portray disunity among opposition forces, so it reads bad faith into a straightforward procedural decision.

But parliamentary democracy depends on rules being applied calmly and consistently, not twisted for short-term propaganda. The APNU’s position was rooted in respect for the electorate’s verdict, adherence to Westminster practice, and compliance with Guyana’s constitutional and parliamentary framework.

A single nominee means no vote. No vote means no need for members to remain in the chamber. Everything else is noise.

The sooner we separate procedure from propaganda, the healthier our democracy will be.

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

---

• APNU, General Elections, Opposition Leader, Peeping Tom

---