Fugitive in Parliament would tarnish Guyana’s image – Speaker Nadir maintains

Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, has maintained that allowing a fugitive to occupy a senior Parliamentary position could undermine the integrity of Guyana’s Parliament and damage the country’s reputation at home and abroad.
Speaking on the matter during a wide-ranging interview, the Speaker drew a sharp distinction between the legal principle of presumption of innocence and the status of a fugitive, arguing that the latter raises serious institutional and reputational concerns that cannot be ignored in a democratic system. According to Nadir, fugitive status has nothing to do with whether a person has been found guilty or innocent of an offence. Instead, it centres on whether an individual has failed to submit to lawful authority by refusing to appear before a court.
“A fugitive is a person who has escaped from custody or who refuses to show up to court,” the Speaker said, noting that this applies whether the matter is minor or serious. He explained that once a person fails to appear as required, a court may issue a warrant, making that individual a fugitive in law. He emphasised that the concept does not contradict the presumption of innocence, since the determination of guilt or innocence can only be made when a person submits to the legal process. Refusing to appear before a court, he said, prevents that determination from being made. The Speaker further explained that when such matters cross national borders, the issue escalates. A person who fails to answer charges in another jurisdiction may be classified as an international fugitive, particularly where extradition treaties exist between states. Nadir said many democracies have long grappled with the question of whether individuals facing criminal proceedings should be permitted to serve in Parliament and noted that several countries have enacted legislation to prevent persons in such circumstances from holding Parliamentary office. He pointed out that even Guyana’s Constitution already disqualifies individuals who have been convicted of certain offences from sitting in Parliament but argued that the issue of persons actively evading the courts presents a different and troubling challenge. Beyond the legal definition, the Speaker warned that the presence of a fugitive in a prominent Parliamentary role could cast a shadow over the credibility of the National Assembly and, by extension, the country itself. “How does it look that a senior Parliamentary official is later extradited to another country to face charges?” he asked, cautioning that such a scenario would reflect poorly not only on Parliament but on Guyana as a whole. “These are high positions,” Nadir said, adding that actions taken by individuals in such roles inevitably affect the reputation of the nation.
“If you do something wrong, especially outside of Guyana, it has a huge impact on the credibility and reputation of our country,” he added.

“Parliamentary privilege”
The Speaker also addressed concerns that the Parliamentary office could be used as a shield against prosecution and firmly rejected that notion. He clarified that in Guyana, the only immunity afforded to Members of Parliament (MP) relates strictly to words spoken and actions taken during sittings of the National Assembly.
“Being a Member of Parliament does not prevent you from being charged, arrested or extradited,” he said, noting that MPs enjoy no general protection from the law. Outside of Parliamentary proceedings, he stressed, MPs are subject to the same legal obligations as any other citizen. Nadir warned that misunderstandings about Parliamentary privilege risk eroding public trust in democratic institutions, particularly if citizens believe that elected officials are above the law.
In a vivid metaphor, the Speaker likened the potential reputational damage to a stain that is difficult to remove. Recalling an incident earlier in the day when he spilt coffee on his shirt, Nadir said the mark remained visible despite attempts to clean it. “No matter how much massaging, erasing, or cleansing you do, the stain is still there,” he said, suggesting that reputational harm caused by controversial leadership choices can linger long after the immediate controversy has passed.
He stressed that the burden of such damage would not fall on an individual alone but on the country as a whole, which would then be forced to work to restore confidence and credibility in its institutions. The Speaker also indicated that the issue highlights a potential gap in Guyana’s legal framework, noting that while conviction is addressed in law, the question of persons facing serious prosecution or evading the courts remains unresolved.
He said many countries have moved to modernise their laws to reflect these concerns and expressed hope that Guyana would eventually consider similar legislative safeguards to protect the integrity of Parliament. Throughout the interview, Nadir maintained that his concerns were rooted not in politics but in the long-term health of Guyana’s democratic institutions. He said safeguarding the integrity of Parliament requires vigilance, particularly at moments when public confidence is under strain. “This is not about one person; it is about Guyana,” the Speaker insisted.