If I were the Speaker, I would delay election of Opposition Leader until later

Guyana once had a disgraced parliament where MPs were elected through rigged elections. Since 1992, MPs earned their right to sit in parliament because they were elected in free and fair elections. Guyana’s Parliament serves as a distinguished member of the International Parliamentary Union (IPU). As the 13th parliament begins to function, the last thing we should want is to have a leader of the opposition extradited to a foreign country charged with serious criminal offenses and subject to a long jail sentence. That possibility is real right now.
Under the circumstances, if I were the Speaker of the Parliament, I would delay the election of the leader of the opposition until extradition proceedings have been completed. The opposition has argued that the Speaker is obligated by law to convene a meeting of the opposition MPs to elect the leader. While the law provides for the speaker to convene a meeting to elect the leader of the opposition, the timing is entirely up to the speaker.
Ruminations is hopeful that Speaker Mansoor Nadir takes his time before convening a meeting of opposition MPs to elect the leader of the opposition. As a country, we should not want to taint our parliament by having a leader of the opposition extradited to another country to face serious criminal charges. If that possibility arises, then as a country we should take all measures to ensure it does not happen.
Practice has determined that the opposition leader is elected at a meeting convened by the speaker at the earliest possible time. But the law itself does not stipulate the time. Ruminations posit, that given the present circumstances, the speaker needs to determine if the time is right. For the majority of Guyanese, the time is not right for the election of the leader of the opposition.
Azrudin Mohamed and the opposition MPs only have themselves to blame for this situation. The facts are clear. One of the 29 opposition MPs who were sworn in on November 3rd, 2025 in the 13th Parliament was Azrudin Mohamed. He and his father were sanctioned, then indicted and subjected to a request for extradition to America before the 13th Parliament commenced. Subsequently extradition proceeding started against Azrudin Mohamed and his father. Azrudin Mohamed himself and his 15 MPs made it clear that they intended to vote for Azrudin Mohamed as the leader of the opposition. The other 12 MPs from the PNC-led APNU and Ms. Amanza Desir Walton who obtained a left-over seat have not objected to Azrudin Mohamed as the leader of the opposition. This is sheer arrogance.
Mansoor Nadir, as the speaker, therefore, has strong evidence that should he convene the meeting to elect the leader of the opposition he would be part of a reckless action to appoint an opposition leader that is most likely to be extradited sooner-than-later.
Speaker Mansoor Nadir is not denying Azrudin Mohamed his right. If extradition is not granted by the court, then Speaker Nadir must proceed with the election of the leader of the opposition. Until the court makes its decision, Speaker Nadir is obligated to hold his hands. The speaker is not abusing his authority; he is using his authority responsibly. The reputation of the parliament must be preserved. While the speaker cannot prevent the election of anyone as an MP, the speaker does have a responsibility to ensure that the leader of the House or the leader of the opposition are not persons who face extradition for serious criminal charges in another country. Until the court decides whether Azrudin Mohamed would be extradited, the speaker needs to ensure that he is not elected as the leader of the opposition.
Azrudin Mohamed has been granted rights under our constitution. He can challenge his extradition and he can prolong the legal battle to conclude the extradition hearings. He and his lawyers have been using every legal challenge they can conjure up. They have even utilized options that the courts have deemed vexatious and frivolous. But just as Azrudin Mohamed is using what the law provides for him to delay his extradition hearing and challenge his extradition, so too are the options of the speaker to delay the election of the leader of the opposition.
The law requires the speaker to convene the election, but it is up to the speaker to decide when. Given that any MP who is sentenced to jail has to vacate his or her seat, and the possibility exists that Azrudin could be extradited and then sentence to a long imprisonment, the speaker must, at least, wait to determine if Azrudin will be extradited to face those charges. If he were to be extradited, the opposition will need to nominate another person as the leader.
There are those who will argue that the extradition process could extend for a long time and that it would be unfair to delay the election of the leader of the opposition until then. The opposition MPs had a choice – they could have decided that Azrudin Mohamed would only seek the position as leader of the opposition when the extradition process is completed and he is not extradited. If he is not extradited, then he could offer himself again as the candidate for leader of the opposition.
The truth is a criminal matter has been transformed into a political process by Azrudin Mohamed. The truth is he wants to argue that this is a political persecution and his election as the opposition leader would strengthen his claim. Just as he seeks to control the narrative, the speaker has a right to determine the narrative that is in the interest of the parliament. Ruminations support the speaker the interest of the parliament must be paramount.