In political discourse, those who are quick to admonish others about proper conduct sometimes fail to reflect on their own actions. This familiar human tendency is well captured in the Guyanese expression, “pot tellin’ karahie ee battam black.” Where criticism is intended to uphold standards, reinforce accountability, or protect institutional integrity, it may serve a legitimate purpose. However, such criticism carries weight only when those who issue it are equally prepared to have their own conduct assessed against the same standards.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has positioned himself and the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) as the moral arbiter of parliamentary and constitutional propriety.
He warns that “history will judge those who support the election of Azruddin Mohamed” to the post of Leader of the Opposition, describing it as an “indictment on our country” and insisting the PPP/C will be “vindicated and absolved by history.”
Mohamed, sanctioned by the United States and facing criminal charges, is portrayed as a national embarrassment whose elevation would undermine both domestic and regional governance. The AG is correct. The election of Azruddin Mohamed as Opposition Leader could have consequences for the relations between Guyana and its international partners.
But when Nandlall invokes history and how it will judge, the irony cannot be ignored. The government he defends has presided over at least two occasions when the president acted solely on matters that constitutionally required input from an opposition leader.
Most recent is the appointment of those who will serve on the Teaching Service Commission. Article 207 of the Constitution requires the President to consult meaningfully with the Leader of the Opposition when appointing members. In December 2025, the President, Dr Irfaan Ali, proceeded to swear in members without such consultation. President Irfaan Ali defended the move, citing urgency.
“I don’t want a new term to start without having the Commission in place to make important decisions that would allow the quality of teaching to improve and also allow more opportunities,” he said.
While urgency has merit, bypassing established constitutional safeguards cannot be justified by urgency. Public perception matters, and the unilateral appointment fueled controversy and suspicion. The President’s unilateral actions could have been inspired by a court ruling in the matter involving the appointment of Clifton Hicken as Acting Police Commissioner in 2022.
Similarly, at that time, there was no Leader of the Opposition. Joseph Harmon had resigned the post following Aubrey Norton’s ascension to PNCR Leader. The Executive Committee was adamant that the party’s Leader must be the Opposition Leader. It was during this transition that the President appointed Hicken. Further, during this period, there was no constituted Police Service Commission.
Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George ruled that Hicken’s appointment was legal and constitutional.
“This is a case of a necessity… to ensure that the unexpected lacuna… did not result in a situation that would have left the Guyana Police Force without a Commissioner,” Justice George noted.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the appointment of Hicken and the Members of the TSC was done solely by the President.
While the appointment of Hicken and the subsequent ruling could be chalked up as a lapse by the then opposition, the current vacancy in the post of an Opposition Leader now is far from the categorisation of “similar circumstances”. There are more elements at play. Central to this story is the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir.
An economist, five-term parliamentarian, and former PPP/C minister for a decade, Nadir is no political novice.
It is apt to note that during the period when Opposition MPs needed to convene to nominate a Leader of the Opposition, Nadir was abroad. He was silent.
He only went live upon his return, speaking about attacks from Mohamed’s party and criticising calls for him to summon the meeting. This was months after the September 2025 elections and coincidentally after the TSC was constituted. Also coincidental was his return days after the reading of the 2026 Budget date was announced.
The Speaker could have still acted abroad by clarifying timelines thereby quelling apprehensions by an antsy opposition.
By failing to do so, he created a vacuum that allowed the government to act unilaterally.
History may judge that, even without malice, his absence and inaction enabled a constitutional bypass, reinforcing perceptions of partiality. Unlike Hicken’s appointment, the TSC bypass could have been mitigated had the Speaker acted responsibly.
Nevertheless, Nandlall speaks proudly about his party always being on the right side of the law and history.
The history of Mohamed becoming Opposition Leader is yet to be written. If it does come to past, history may note that Mohamed was the only choice for opposition leader because his young party, We Invest In Nationhood (WIN), secured the second largest block of votes, beating veterans in the game despite its leader’s status as a US-sanctioned person. It is simply the will of the people. Some may see this as the downside of democracy, but it is democracy.
History will judge a government that not only supported the erosion of democracy but also took advantage of the opportunity to even further get its way. History will also consider that Nadir was nominated Speaker by the PPP/C using its majority, and that it was his inaction and absence that indirectly facilitated the bypass of consultation.
When history recalls efforts in 2015 to thwart the will of the people, it will remember how the guardians of democracy who were loud in 2015 became silent in 2025 and 2026. Was it really democracy they protected, or the convenience of democracy being on their side at the time?
Indeed, history will judge us all, and history has much to consider.
