The CRC

Jul 07, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Constitutional reform is not an ordinary legislative exercise. It is perhaps the most consequential undertaking in any democracy because it seeks to reshape the supreme law of the land, the document that defines the relationship between the state and its citizens, limits governmental power and protects fundamental rights.

That process must therefore be beyond reproach. It must inspire confidence, command legitimacy and, above all, be inclusive.

It is against this backdrop that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration’s refusal to reconstitute the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) to include the parliamentary opposition, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), is both perplexing and deeply troubling.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s position is that the commission is “properly constituted” under the Constitution Reform Commission Act of 2022 and should therefore proceed uninterrupted. Legally, that argument may have merit. But constitutional reform demands far more than mere legal compliance. It requires political wisdom, democratic maturity and a willingness to build national consensus.

On that score, the government has fallen woefully short.

The most persuasive argument in this debate came not from the government but from Alliance For Change (AFC) Executive David Patterson. His reasoning cuts through the legal technicalities and exposes the practical folly of the government’s position.

Patterson reminded the nation that any constitutional amendments emerging from this process will eventually require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly before they can become law. That parliamentary arithmetic is unavoidable. Given the current composition of parliament, the government cannot achieve that threshold without support from WIN, the very party it now refuses to accommodate on the commission.

That reality makes the government’s position remarkably shortsighted.

How can the administration reasonably expect WIN to endorse constitutional changes later when it is unwilling to afford the party a meaningful role in shaping those reforms today?

Constitution-making is not merely about inviting written submissions or allowing citizens to attend consultations. Commissioners do far more than listen. They debate competing proposals, negotiate compromises, frame recommendations and ultimately determine what reaches parliament.

As WIN Chief Whip Tabitha Sarabo-Halley correctly observed, there is a fundamental difference between being consulted and being represented.

Public participation is indispensable. But representation at the decision-making table is equally indispensable.

Ganesh Mahipaul’s attempt to dismiss WIN’s concerns is equally disappointing. The APNU parliamentarian argues that WIN already enjoys sufficient oversight because it sits on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform, where the commission’s recommendations will eventually be examined.

That argument ignores political reality.

The standing committee operates on majority voting. The PPP/C holds five seats while WIN and APNU each have two. If consensus cannot be reached, the government possesses the numerical strength to approve whatever recommendations it chooses.

To suggest that this committee somehow offers equivalent influence to membership on the commission itself is therefore misleading.

More importantly, Mahipaul appears to overlook the value of achieving consensus before recommendations ever reach parliament. Constitutional reform should not become another arena for winner-take-all politics.

One cannot escape the suspicion that APNU’s reluctance to support WIN’s inclusion may be influenced by self-interest. Should the commission be reconstituted to reflect the present parliament, APNU would almost certainly surrender one or more of its existing seats to accommodate the current official opposition.

If that is indeed the calculation, then APNU is placing partisan arithmetic above national interest.

The constitution belongs neither to the PPP nor APNU nor WIN. It belongs to the people of Guyana.

That is why the recommendations of international observers deserve serious attention. The Carter Center has already recommended that the commission’s composition be reviewed to reflect the post-election political landscape and ensure that all parliamentary parties are represented. That recommendation recognises an essential democratic principle: institutions tasked with constitutional reform must reflect the political mandate most recently expressed by the electorate.

The government cannot simultaneously proclaim that public confidence is central to constitutional reform while refusing to acknowledge that confidence depends on fair representation.

Retired Justice Carl Singh has already clarified that the commission itself cannot alter its membership. Legislative action is required. That means the responsibility lies squarely with the government, which has the ability to amend the law if it genuinely wishes to make the process more inclusive.

Instead, it has chosen rigidity over statesmanship.

No one is arguing that the commission has acted unlawfully. The issue is whether it reflects today’s democratic reality.

The answer is plainly no.

The PPP/C has repeatedly insisted that constitutional reform should belong to all Guyanese. If that declaration is sincere, then there can be no credible justification for excluding the largest opposition party in parliament from the very body entrusted with recommending constitutional change.

The government still has an opportunity to correct course before consultations progress further. Doing so would not weaken the process. It would strengthen its legitimacy and improve the prospects of securing the broad parliamentary consensus that constitutional reform inevitably demands.

The constitution should never be rewritten through narrow partisan calculations. It must emerge from dialogue, compromise and inclusion.

Anything less risks producing constitutional reform that may be legal on paper but deficient in legitimacy and ultimately incapable of attracting the parliamentary support it will require to become the law of the land.

---

• Alliance For Change, constitutional reform, Editorial, legislative exercise

---