The CRC

Aug 27, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Guyana cannot afford to treat constitutional reform as another endless national talking shop. The Constitution is the foundation on which the country’s democratic institutions stand and any effort to strengthen it cannot be allowed to collapse under the weight of bureaucracy, political convenience and institutional inertia.

Yet that is precisely where the country appears to be heading. More than two years after the Carl Singh-led Constitution Reform Commission was sworn in, Guyanese are now being invited to submit written proposals by 31^st December. Attorney-at-law and Chartered Accountant Christopher Ram has rightly questioned how a process that was supposed to advance constitutional reform could take nearly four years from the passage of the legislation and more than two years after the Commission was sworn in—to reach what amounts to the beginning of public consultation.

This is not merely slow. It is unacceptable. The comparison with the 1999 Constitution Reform Commission is particularly damning. That Commission, operating in a far more politically charged environment following the 1997 elections and the Herdmanston Accord, substantially completed its work in roughly six months. It considered approximately 4,600 proposals, held public hearings, consulted experts and produced 171 recommendations.

The present Commission has had years, significant public resources and a mandate established by Parliament. Yet the country is still waiting for evidence of comparable substantive progress. There are also serious questions about money. Ram has called for a full accounting of the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to constitutional reform and its supporting machinery. He has also raised questions about reported monthly payments of $1.3 million to the Chairman, $500,000 to the Vice-Chairman, $200,000 to each Commissioner and $600,000 to the Secretary.

If public funds are being spent at this level, Guyanese are entitled to know what they are receiving in return. The issue is not whether those officials should be compensated. The issue is whether taxpayers are getting value for money. Questions surrounding attendance during the four-month recess associated with the 2025 elections also cannot simply disappear. If Commissioners were paid while attendance and participation were inadequate, the public deserves a clear explanation. Transparency cannot be demanded from government institutions while the reform machinery itself operates behind a veil.

Then there is the elephant in the room: political representation.

The Commission no longer reflects the parliamentary configuration produced by the 2025 elections. WIN, now holding 16 seats and serving as the principal Opposition party, has no representative on the Commission. Yet a representative of the former Joinder parties remains, despite those parties having no representation in the current National Assembly.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall reportedly acknowledged the problem last year, noting that the legislation was designed around the previous parliamentary configuration and that amendments were being prepared. Why, then, is the Commission proceeding with consultation before this fundamental defect is corrected?

Constitutional reform cannot credibly be designed without the participation of a major parliamentary force whose support may ultimately be necessary to pass the reforms.

And the issues demanding attention are enormous. Guyana is no longer the country it was when many of the existing constitutional arrangements were conceived. The oil era has created unprecedented questions about natural-resource governance, intergenerational equity, accountability for national wealth and the concentration of executive power.

There are also questions about presidential immunity, inclusionary democracy, appointment deadlocks, GECOM, parliamentary oversight and local government autonomy. These matters cannot be treated as an academic exercise. Parliament must now reclaim responsibility for moving the process forward. If the Commission has failed to meet reasonable, time-bound and assignment-bound expectations, it should not be given an indefinite extension simply because it has already consumed years and public money.

The Government should publish a comprehensive accounting of all expenditure and remuneration. The Commission should publish its attendance records, meeting records, research undertaken and substantive work produced. And Parliament should establish a firm deadline for completing meaningful constitutional reform.

Guyana does not need another commission that consumes time while producing reports about why more time is needed. The Constitution belongs to the people, not to a commission. The country has waited long enough. The reform process must now move from talk to action or Parliament must have the courage to start again.

---

• Christopher Ram, Constitution, CRC, Editorial

---