The leopard, the PAC and the great political rehearsal

Aug 04, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is an old saying that a leopard cannot change its spots. In Guyana, we have improved upon this principle. Our political leopard does not merely retain its spots; it carries them into parliament, polishes them, frames them, hangs them on the wall and then attempts to explain why the spots are evidence of somebody else’s moral deficiency.

Which brings us to the latest installment of the great political theatre company formerly known as the APNU. The current production is called remove Edghill Immediately, with the Public Accounts Committee serving as the stage, Minister Juan Edghill as the unwilling leading man, and the opposition walking out of the commiteee.

There is, however, something hauntingly familiar about the script. We have seen this movie before.

Back in 2012, after the tragic shootings at Linden in which three protesters were killed, the then APNU/AFC Opposition mounted a campaign for the resignation of Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee. The National Assembly, with the opposition having a one-seat majority, passed a no-confidence motion against him on 30^th July, 2012. The opposition then sought to turn that political expression of no confidence into something resembling a parliamentary gag order. They attempted to deny Rohee from speaking in and participating in the business of the house.

The matter ended up before Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang. And Justice Chang essentially performed the parliamentary equivalent of opening a window in a room.

His ruling was devastatingly simple. Rohee was an elected Member of the National Assembly. His ministerial status was, for the relevant constitutional question, beside the point. Justice Chang concluded that, as a matter of law, an elected member could not simply be prevented from speaking because the majority had lost confidence in him as a minister.

In other words, parliament could express its political displeasure. It could vote against him. It could condemn him. It could engage in the parliamentary equivalent of rolling its eyes so violently that the chandeliers shook. But it could not simply erase his constitutional rights as an elected parliamentarian.

Justice Chang was particularly clear that the separation of powers mattered. The courts would not ordinarily interfere in parliamentary proceedings, but constitutional rights were another matter. His ruling held that the no-confidence motion, insofar as it purported to prevent Rohee from participating in the Assembly, could not be implemented without infringing his constitutional rights.

Eventually Speaker Raphael Trotman restored Rohee’s full right to participate in the House, recognising that the National Assembly could not, by majority vote, derogate from the constitutional rights of an individual Member except where the Constitution permitted it.

One would have thought the lesson might have been absorbed. Apparently, APNU has a difficulty learning its lessons.

Fast-forward to 2026 and the same political instinct has reappeared, this time wearing a slightly different costume. Minister Edghill is a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, the official parliamentary record identifies him as a member of the PAC.

The opposition’s answer to this inconvenient constitutional and parliamentary reality appears to be: If you cannot remove the man, remove yourselves. So, they walk out.

This is wonderfully theatrical. It has all the ingredients of serious politics: indignation, solemn faces, dramatic exits and absolutely no requirement that the audience understand what happens after everybody has left the room.

The irony is almost too perfect. The Public Accounts Committee exists to scrutinise public expenditure and promote accountability. Its work is already burdened by delays and backlogs. Walking out because a properly appointed member is sitting at the table is therefore rather like boycotting a fire station because you object to one of the firefighters.

And there is another, more interesting political irony. While APNU is rediscovering the ancient art of parliamentary histrionics, WIN is discovering something considerably more useful.

During the MV Barima tragedy, WIN has joined other opposition forces in calls for an independent investigation and has participated visibly in public political mobilisation protesting the disaster.

This follows political logic. Because politics is not ultimately won by producing the loudest parliamentary exit. It is won by persuading people outside Parliament that you understand their anger, their anxieties and their aspirations.

APNU is now a minority Opposition. In the 2025 elections, WIN emerged as a significant new force, and the political landscape has changed dramatically. The old Opposition can continue performing the familiar repertoire such as walkouts and disruptions to parliamentary proceedings. But voters have seen this production before.

The danger for APNU is that its leopard may indeed be incapable of changing its spots. The greater danger is that voters may become bored with looking at them.

By 2030, the question may not be whether APNU can produce another dramatic parliamentary performance. It may be whether anybody is still buying tickets.

Because there comes a point in politics when theatrics begin to look like rehearsal. And Guyanese voters, unlike Parliament, are under no constitutional obligation to sit through the entire performance.

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

---

• APNU, leopard, PAC, Peeping Tom, political leopard

---