Why should the president be meeting with the leader of the opposition?

May 26, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – A reporter recently asked the president when he was going to “reach with” the leader of the opposition. Now I listened carefully to this question several times.

I did so partly because I thought perhaps, I had suffered a temporary hearing malfunction, and partly because I was hoping there was some hidden constitutional doctrine I had missed in school. But no. The phrase remained there in all its mysterious glory: “reach with.”

I don’t know if the reporter was expecting the president to answer, “Well, I was planning to reach with him around Thursday, but my calendar is full. But this is not the answer that came.

Instead, the president said he did not understand the question. Frankly, that was probably the most courteous response available. In fact, if anything, the president showed remarkable restraint. Some men would have questioned the sensibleness of the question.

The constitution does not require the president to “reach with” anybody. The president is required, under certain circumstances, to consult with the leader of the opposition regarding constitutional appointments. There is no need for the president to ‘meet with’ the leader of the opposition. None whatsoever outside of those circumstances dictated by the constitution.

And there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to a courtesy call or a formal meeting of introduction between the president and the leader of the opposition. The constitution does not state that upon assuming the leader of the opposition a meeting with the President must be held. There is, however, a need for consultation when the need arises to make appointments to certain offices.

And consultation does not necessarily require two persons to sit face-to-face beneath chandeliers pretending to enjoy each other’s company while photographers around. Consultation does not mean face-to-face meetings. Consultations can occur through letters, written submissions and through representatives.

But apparently in Guyana, we have entered an era where governance is judged like a family reunion. “But why they ain’t meet up yet?” people ask.

Now let us introduce into this already surreal equation one additional complication. The leader of the opposition is currently facing legal troubles, including indictment in a foreign court and local extradition proceedings. This is not a minor footnote.

Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the government may prefer to keep interactions, with the leader of the opposition, to only when it is constitutionally necessary to do so.

In fact, many governments around the world would probably do exactly the same thing. One does not casually arrange warm photo opportunities while extradition lawyers are hovering around.

Yet some people reacted to the president’s response as though he had insulted the leader of the opposition. They took umbrage.

But why the outrage at the president’s response? I for one would not want to be seen next to someone who faces such grave legal problems. But the president did not throw any cheap shots like his party’s general secretary did when he held press conferences.

The president merely said he did not understand the question. Which is entirely reasonable because the question itself possessed the structural integrity of wet cardboard.

Few people have stopped to interrogate the question itself. Journalists, ideally, are supposed to clarify public understanding, not deepen the fog.

There is a larger issue here about journalism in Guyana. The media already operates under immense pressure — political, commercial, ideological and social. Under such conditions, precision matters. Language matters. Questions matter.

Instead, too often we get inquiries that sound as though they were assembled hurriedly from WhatsApp voice notes and roadside gossip.

A press conference is not a village liming spot where someone leans over a domino table and says, “So when allyuh meeting up?” Yet increasingly, serious constitutional matters are framed with similar casualness.

And then comes the secondary absurdity. People are becoming offended by the answer without first examining the premise of the question.

Surely the present reality is obvious. Unless there arises, some pressing constitutional necessity requiring direct engagement, there is little practical or political incentive for the president to pursue face-to-face meetings with the opposition leader.

Not meeting with him is not scandalous. It is not shocking. It is not even especially dramatic. It is not required.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are left trying to decipher what exactly “reach with” was supposed to mean in the first place. Meet him for what? To what end? Why?

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

---

• constitutional doctrine, Leader of the Opposition, opposition, Peeping Tom

---