The Speaker and Parliament

Today the 13th Parliament will be convened for the Government to present its Budget 2026 for debate and eventual passage. This is not an inconsequential function of the institution but it has unfortunately been overshadowed by an event that will precede the presentation – the election of the Leader of the Opposition (LOO) by a caucus of all opposition Members of Parliament.
The Speaker has been trenchantly criticised by the opposition and a section of society for the time he took to schedule the opposition caucus on Jan 26. This is three months after the first convening of Parliament on Nov, 3rd 2025, which was itself two months after the Sept 1st General Elections. That election had upended 60 years of political history when a new political party – We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), launched three months before the election – snagged a significant segment of the PNC’s traditional base. It secured 16 seats to the APNU/PNC’s 12 and the PPP’s 36, the latter forming the government and the first two the opposition.
The appointment of the LOO is specified by Art 184 of the Constitution which states “the Leader of the Opposition shall be elected by and from among non-governmental members of the National Assembly at a meeting held under the chairmanship of the speaker of the National Assembly who shall not have the right to vote.” As can be seen, there is no specified time-frame within which the selection of the LOO must be made. The Speaker in his deliberate judgement chose to have it precede the first substantive meeting of the National Assembly.
Inter alia, the leader of WIN is an individual sanctioned by the US OFAC and slapped with eleven indictments for allegedly smuggling 4 tonnes of gold to the US and under invoicing several luxury cars shipped to Guyana. The government had been attempting to satisfy its obligations under an Extradition Treaty it signed with the US, while the WIN leader retreated to the local Courts to block the extradition that would have ended with his trial in the US Courts. The Opposition and its partisans have launched vitriolic attacks against the Speaker, accusing him of supporting “a Government vendetta” against the WIN leader.
Returning from a series of foreign trips – including a convention of Commonwealth Speakers in India – the speaker explained his position on the WIN Leader. He notes that Azruddin Mohamed is an “international fugitive” who, if he becomes the LOO – a constitutional role – would be a “stain on Guyana”. Not unexpectedly, WIN has taken umbrage at this position and accused the Speaker of “bias”, when he should be “impartial”. Some have even called for his resignation.
However, this completely misstates the function and duty of the Speaker: he must be impartial in matters between MPs but has a duty to protect the institution he chairs. We note the foundational historical moment in 1523 when the Speaker of the English Parliament, Sir Thomas Moore took a moral position to oppose the absolutist-inclined monarch Henry VIII to establish the right to freely express one’s opinion in parliament as sacrosanct.
This does not mean that the WIN leader is guilty of the charges. But when he has been afforded the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and rejects that opportunity then the stain on his name can percolate into that of the institution in which he holds such an important role. MPs are described as “honourable” and it would seem that in the judgement of the Speaker the WIN leader should voluntarily avail himself of the opportunity to clear the stain on his name.
Sir Thomas Moore bravely demonstrated that Parliament is a living institution and should evolve to deal with new exigencies. Speaker Nadir has acted in that noble tradition.