Eusi Kwayana: a Guyana son for the ages

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA  

   Eusi Kwayana: a Guyana son for the ages

OPINION BY: GHK LALL October 2026

The day had to come.  An exceptional one it is, for such is reaching the landmark figure of 101 in this life.  By itself, it speaks of a passage in life that made the extraordinary look ordinary.  But when Eusi Kwayana traveled those 101 years, they took on a gleam that was simply more than human.  For the Sage of Guyana was not just a man of his time, but of one beyond his time.  Am I up to this task?  This task of honoring a truly great Guyanese, one that I would dare to number among this nation’s Founding Fathers.

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them” is from Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night (Act 2, Scene 5).  I can’t say anything about Eusi Kwayana and his being born great.  But with all the strength and skill that I am capable of, the man achieved greatness, and he had the call of greatness thrust upon him.  From his journey in the crags and moors, the dark places and highlights, of Guyana, those are all a tribute to his greatness.  Nothing that I can pen adds to that homespun truth.

A man of the village was Eusi Kwayana.  He spoke the language of the common man.  Yet, he could make powers and plenipotentiaries rock back on their heels, take another look at him.  A man to take seriously, a man for the seasons, a man for the ages of Guyana.  There was a time when he had a lot to say, a time when he offered this country more.  He knew when to speak, when to hold his peace.  Unlike the Young Turks, for whom words are a commodity (like peddled flesh), Kwayana made every word count.  No frills.  No frivolousness.  And certainly, no fooling of the people who trusted at his knee, hung on to his every word.

I came of age when the years of his vigorous youthfulness were taking its first steps away from the crucible of struggle in Guyana.  When he assumed the role of an elder statesman in a place that time forgot, and no one wanted to know.  In the grey years, his voice still could be heard.  The people.  the people.  the people.  Guyana.  Guyana united.  Guyana together.  Guyana going places, despite its self-inflicted handicaps that kept it going on its knees.  Who listens to such a man?  Who has any interest in sharing power, spreading around the spoils? 

It is why that even when Guyana is on top of the world, it still does not have roots, lacks foundations, and cheats itself of the strengths that rightly belong to it.  It has been the Guyana story.  The story that Kwayana and a small company took as their mandate to change, to upend what has always made this country less than it is, should ever be.

A figure like Kwayana attracts slings and arrows.  The poisoned variety.  He was a racist.  He was a divider.  He was an African supremacist.  Great God in heaven!  Savagery does stalk this land, and it has never been at less than full strength.  He outlived all those assaults and insults on his dignity, his striving for the people.  Indeed, a prophet is not loved in his hometown.  Kwayana was the living embodiment of that truth.  He knew what it was to be vilified, damned, and condemned.  He knew what it was to be written off; yet he always came back, lingered, left a greater impression than before. 

The man was a marvel and a miracle.  The irony is that so many Guyanese have so little use for him.  The simple people adored him.

In a time when cyberspace creatures rule the roost in Guyana, the Sage of Buxton still had the grassroots about him.  He smelled of grass.  The scent of honest sweat from hard labor.  So was his.  For the people, for a better Guyana.  The willingness still to keep trying when the odds are so long and so against.  Yet, there was no give in him.  How much can Guyana and Guyanese be better, if only there were a half dozen more like Eusi Kwayana. 

It is one part of the many tragedies in this country that is so rich with so many other fruits.  The nonhuman.  The servant-leaders that should abound, but never around.  The loudmouths that haven’t a clue of how vulgar and vacuous they sound.  But I, too, just erred.  There should be no tainting of this homage to a man who has served this country as well as Eusi Kwayana, as humbly, and as continuously.

Now, he returns to the village and the folks from whence he came.  Now he makes that one last journey to be in the bosom of his ancestors.  Farewell, great son of Guyana.  Farewell, Eusi Kwayana, for a life well lived, for all the gifts left for others, including me.  May his spirit soar with the ancestors, may he find peace in this continent, all others.

The Attorney General’s Sudden Discovery

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

The Attorney General’s Sudden Discovery

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

The public’s silence is not apathy. It is a verdict on a process that began without earning the public’s confidence.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall now says he is shocked that, after weeks of advertisements, the Constitutional Reform Commission has received barely more than 20 written submissions from the public.

There is nothing shocking about it.

What is shocking is that the Attorney General and the Government appear genuinely surprised that Guyanese are reluctant to invest their time, ideas and hopes in a constitutional-reform exercise that many regard as another carefully managed political performance.

The public has not “shunned” constitutional reform. The public has responded to the manner in which it has been pursued:with distrust, fatigue and the firm belief that ordinary citizens are invited only after the major political decisions have already been made.

For years, Guyanese have watched the political class preach inclusion while practising exclusion. They have watched national institutions weakened, appointments delayed, constitutional requirements ignored when inconvenient, and public consultations reduced to formalities. Against that background, the Attorney General cannot expect citizens to rush forward merely because a notice was published and an email address provided.

A constitutional reform process cannot be credible simply because it carries the word “public” in its title. It must be structured, representative, independent and visibly insulated from partisan control. Yet the present Commission is widely seen as populated by the same familiar actors and constrained by the same old political architecture that has repeatedly failed to build broad national trust.

That is the central problem: Guyana’s political reality has changed, but the CRC does not appear to reflect that change.

The country is more politically aware, more ethnically sensitive, more economically unequal and more suspicious of elite decision-making than at any time in its recent history. Guyanese are watching the management of unprecedented oil wealth, the expansion of executive power, failures of oversight, weaknesses in public accountability, and the continued marginalization of voices outside the main political establishment. A constitutional process that does not convincingly include those voices will not command national legitimacy.

The Attorney General says the process was designed to be driven by the public. But a process cannot be public-driven where the public does not trust the drivers.

Nor can the Government practice autocratic governance and then expect democratic participation on demand. Citizens cannot be excluded from meaningful decision-making, treated as spectators in their own country, and then blamed when they decline an invitation to legitimize a process in which they have little faith.

There is also a deeper reality. Many Guyanese have concluded that the Constitution may contain lofty promises but lacks practical force when institutions responsible for enforcing it are weak, compromised, understaffed, politically influenced or simply unwilling to act. Rights on paper mean little when accountability is absent in practice.

That is why many citizens ask a fair but difficult question: why spend time proposing constitutional amendments when those already in the Constitution are routinely disregarded or selectively applied?

Before lecturing citizens about their failure to submit written recommendations, the Attorney General should confront the reasons for their disengagement. The Government must explain why constitutional reform was allowed to drift since 2022, only to now be treated with an air of urgency. It must explain how the Commission will overcome concerns about exclusion, political influence and predetermined outcomes. And it must demonstrate—through actions, not advertisements—that dissenting, independent and minority voices will have genuine influence.

If the administration wants participation, it must first restore confidence.

That means taking the process beyond Georgetown conference rooms and newspaper notices. It means direct engagement in every region, meaningful outreach to Indigenous communities, young people, trade unions, religious bodies, professional organizations, civil-society groups, the diaspora and communities that have long felt ignored by the political establishment. It means publishing all submissions, explaining how proposals will be assessed, disclosing areas of disagreement, and ensuring that the Commission’s eventual recommendations cannot be quietly buried or selectively implemented.

Most importantly, it means recognizing that constitutional reform is not an exercise in collecting emails and photocopies of identification cards. It is an opportunity to renegotiate the relationship between the citizen and the State.

The Attorney General should not mistake public distrust for public ignorance. Guyanese understand the importance of the Constitution. They understand that it shapes elections, rights, representation, public power, land, resources and accountability. Their reluctance to participate is not evidence that they do not care.

It is evidence that they care enough not to be used.

The Government cannot operate in an autocratic manner and then demand that citizens respond in a democratic mode. Trust cannot be ordered by advertisement. Participation cannot be manufactured by deadline. And legitimacy cannot be secured by blaming the very people whose confidence the political directorate has spent years squandering.

Until that truth is confronted, the low number of submissions will remain not a mystery—but a warning. 

 

UNESCO Language, Guyana Reality: Promises Abroad Must Meet Conditions at Home

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA 

UNESCO Language, Guyana Reality: Promises Abroad Must Meet Conditions at Home

OPINION BY :Hem Kumar October 2026

Guyana’s representation at UNESCO should be an opportunity to speak honestly about both national ambition and national deficiency. The language of a more “effective,” “responsive,” “inclusive” and “people-centered” UNESCO is meaningful—but it also presents a standard against which Guyana’s own education system must be judged.

At international forums, it is easy to celebrate new schools, digital learning, teacher training, technical education and expanded access in hinterland and riverine communities. Those are worthy objectives. No serious observer would deny that Guyana needs more schools, better-trained teachers, stronger technical programs and greater access for children in remote communities.

But a country cannot credibly speak only of expansion while failing to confront the conditions under which many children and teachers are expected to learn and work.

Across Guyana, parents, teachers and communities have repeatedly raised concerns about deteriorating school buildings, unsafe structures, inadequate sanitary facilities, overcrowding, unfinished construction and maintenance failures. In some cases, schools or sections of schools have had to be closed or reclosed after opening because the buildings were not safe or suitable for occupancy.

That is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It is a profound failure of planning, supervision, procurement, inspection and accountability.

A school building is not merely a project for a ministerial press release. It is a daily environment for children. It must have sound roofs, safe electrical systems, clean water, working toilets, proper ventilation, secure classrooms, adequate furniture and facilities accessible to children with disabilities. It must be properly inspected before it is handed over, and it must be maintained after the cameras leave.

When a school opens with defects—or when it has to close shortly after an opening because of structural or safety concerns—the public is entitled to ask difficult questions. Who approved the work? Who certified that the building was ready? Were the contractors paid in full? Were defects identified before the opening? What action was taken against those responsible? And why are parents and teachers so often left to discover failures that should have been caught through routine professional oversight?

These questions are not an attack on Minister Sonia Parag personally. The issue is larger than any one minister, administration or ministry official. It is a recurring pattern in national governance: grand announcements, elaborate ceremonies, impressive targets—and then weak execution, unfinished works, poor maintenance and limited public accountability.

That pattern is especially troubling in education because children bear the consequences.

Inclusion Requires Safe Schools

Guyana’s message at UNESCO stresses inclusion and the principle that every child, regardless of geography or circumstance, should have access to quality education. That principle should be embraced. But access cannot mean merely assigning a child to a school or constructing a building in a community.

A child does not have meaningful access to quality education if the classroom is unsafe, the roof leaks, the toilets are unusable, the water supply is unreliable, or a construction project remains incomplete for months or years. A teacher cannot be expected to deliver quality instruction while managing basic failures of infrastructure that should have been resolved before the school term begins.

The conditions are often worse in remote and hinterland communities, where the state has an even greater responsibility to get things right. Communities that already contend with distance, transportation challenges, staffing shortages and limited services should not also be burdened with defective schools and incomplete works.

If Guyana is sincere about educational equality, it must establish that children in Regions One, Seven, Eight, Nine and other remote areas deserve the same standard of safety, sanitation and learning conditions as children anywhere else in the country.

Accountability Cannot Be Optional

UNESCO’s reform language—effectiveness, responsiveness, inclusion and impact—should not be treated as diplomatic vocabulary to be repeated abroad. It should become a governing test at home.

An effective education system completes projects on time and to specification.

A responsive education system acts quickly when parents, teachers and communities report unsafe or unsanitary conditions.

An inclusive education system ensures that children in poor, remote and Indigenous communities are not asked to accept facilities that would never be tolerated in Georgetown or in wealthier districts.

An accountable education system identifies who failed when public money is spent on defective buildings, incomplete works or facilities that cannot safely remain open.

That means Guyana needs more than announcements of construction. The Ministry of Education and relevant agencies should publish a national school-infrastructure register identifying every project, its contractor, contract sum, start date, planned completion date, actual completion date, sanitation; which are operating with unsafe buildings; and which projects have been delayed, abandoned or referred for investigation.

There should be no embarrassment in admitting deficiencies. The embarrassment lies in concealing them while proclaiming success.

Speak Truth at International Forums

The irony is that international forums such as UNESCO provide precisely the kind of platform on which Guyana can seek assistance, technical support, partnerships and solutions. They are not merely stages for polished national presentations.

Guyana could use UNESCO discussions to raise the real challenges confronting education: maintaining schools in remote areas; delivering water and sanitation infrastructure; retaining qualified teachers in the hinterland; closing the digital divide; safeguarding Indigenous languages and knowledge; improving disability access; and strengthening monitoring of school construction.

Such candor would not diminish Guyana. It would demonstrate maturity.

No country is expected to have solved every problem. But every country should be expected to describe its challenges honestly, identify what assistance it needs and show a credible plan for improvement. International co-operation is most valuable when it is rooted in truth—not when it is used to shield domestic failures behind flattering language.

Guyana should not go abroad to create the appearance of a flawless education transformation while parents and teachers at home continue to complain about unsafe buildings, poor sanitation, incomplete construction and basic neglect.

From Ceremony to Delivery

The real measure of educational progress is not the number of speeches delivered in Paris, nor the number of sod-turnings and ribbon-cuttings staged in Guyana. It is whether children enter safe, clean, properly equipped classrooms every day.

It is whether a teacher can teach without worrying about the physical condition of the school.It is whether parents can send their children to school with confidence that the building is safe, the toilets work, water is available and the facilities are fit for learning.

Minister Parag’s UNESCO intervention offers a useful standard. Guyana should now apply that standard to itself.

If education is to be inclusive, it must be safe. If it is to be effective, projects must be completed properly. If it is to be accountable, those responsible for failures must answer. And if Guyana wants to be taken seriously when it speaks of “education for all,” it must ensure that the reality facing children in classrooms across the country matches the promise being made on international platforms.

 

The Witness, the Court and the Line That Was Crossed

/0 Comments/in , , /by
 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

The Witness, the Court and the Line That Was Crossed

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

When Opposition Crosses Into Obstruction

There is a vital line between opposition advocacy and conduct that threatens the integrity of justice. An Opposition Leader has a right to investigate the State, expose questionable expenditure, challenge police conduct and demand answers where public resources appear to be misused. In a democracy, that is not merely permitted; it is required.

But the office of Leader of the Opposition is not a license to discard judgment, decorum or respect for the rule of law.

Mohamed has exposed matters that warranted public debate. But not every camera expedition amounts to accountability, and not every confrontation with law enforcement is persecution. Political leadership demands more than disruption. It demands discipline, responsibility and an understanding that an office created by the Constitution carries obligations as well as privileges.

A Leader of the Opposition must be a guardian of the public interest—not a participant in conduct that, if proven, could undermine the safety of witnesses and the integrity of the justice system.

A Line Has Been Crossed

Whatever competing explanation is ultimately offered by Azzrudin Mohamed, the Guyana Police Force, or the Government, one fact remains impossible to escape: the Leader of the Opposition is a party to an active extradition matter before the courts, while Senior Superintendent Prem Narine is a key witness still undergoing cross-examination in that same proceeding.

That reality alone demands restraint, judgment and an unflinching respect for the integrity of the justice system. Instead, Guyana has been presented with a spectacle that raises grave questions about intimidation, interference, public safety and the abuse of political office.

This is not ordinary opposition politics. It is not parliamentary scrutiny. It is not a routine investigation into public expenditure.

Advocacy Has a Legal Boundary

There is nothing improper about questioning how taxpayers’ money is spent. If the Leader of the Opposition believes a police officer is receiving excessive protection, he has every lawful avenue available to him: request information, demand accountability in Parliament, publish documentary evidence, file a formal complaint, seek judicial review, engage the media, or call upon independent oversight bodies.

That is how legitimate public advocacy is conducted.

But no serious democracy can accept that a litigant in a live matter may place himself at the private residence of a central witness late at night and then seek refuge behind the phrase “exposing corruption.” The issue is not whether questions about security arrangements can be raised. They can. The issue is whether the manner, timing, location and circumstances of this intervention crossed the line from political theatre into potential interference with a witness and an ongoing judicial process.

A witness who is still on the stand, still being cross-examined, and still central to proceedings involving the very person appearing at his residence is entitled to safety, peace and protection from any act reasonably capable of producing fear or pressure.

The Law Cannot Be Optional

The precise charges, if any, must be determined by a proper investigation and by the courts. But the incident plainly raises possible issues extending well beyond political controversy:

♦ Possible discharge of a firearm and unlawful possession of firearm or ammunition, subject to forensic evidence and the outcome of the police investigation.

♦ Possible intimidation, harassment, obstruction or interference with a witness in active court proceedings.

♦ Possible endangerment of the witness, his family, nearby residents and law-enforcement officers.

♦ Possible breaches of road, public-order and other criminal laws arising from the reported police pursuit and interception.

♦ Potential contempt-related concerns, depending on whether conduct was intended or reasonably likely to interfere with the administration of justice.

These are not trivial allegations, and they cannot be dissolved by a livestream, a Facebook post, or the now-familiar cry of “political persecution.”

If the firearm allegation is false, then it must be disproven transparently through video evidence, forensic testing, ballistic analysis, independent witnesses and a verifiable chain of custody. 

If it is true, the law must take its course without fear, favor, political calculation or selective enforcement.

Office Requires Decorum

The Leader of the Opposition is not merely another activist, commentator or social-media personality. It is a constitutional office. The holder is expected to act with seriousness, maturity and a clear understanding that his conduct sets a national example.

That office carries the responsibility to scrutinize Government. It does not confer authority to shadow witnesses, create confrontations around their homes, or behave in a manner that can reasonably be understood as coercive or threatening.

Political leaders cannot demand that citizens respect the courts while appearing to test the boundaries of judicial authority when the process turns against them. Nor can they claim to defend democracy while treating a key witness in their own legal matter as a target for late-night “investigation.”

This is where the distinction must be made without apology: opposition advocacy is not immunity from criminal accountability.

The Persecution Narrative Fails

Mohamed has repeatedly portrayed police attention, court proceedings and public scrutiny as evidence of political persecution. But an accusation of persecution cannot become a universal defense to every allegation, every arrest or every encounter with the law.

The extradition proceedings did not arise because he became Leader of the Opposition. The legal jeopardy preceded the political office. That chronology matters. 

It raises the unavoidable question of whether politics was embraced as a platform for public service—or as a shield from accountability.

The strategy has not worked because political office does not erase indictments, nullify court proceedings, silence witnesses or suspend the rule of law.

Guyana must resist the dangerous idea that anyone who cries persecution is automatically excused from answering legitimate questions about their own conduct. The law is not persecution when it is applied fairly. Investigation is not victimization when credible allegations arise. Due process is not oppression when the evidence is allowed to speak.

The Public Interest Demands Facts

This case must now be handled with exceptional care. The Police Force must provide a complete evidentiary account, not a public-relations version of events. The public should expect disclosure, where legally permissible, of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings, ballistic results, forensic findings, the firearm’s chain of custody, statements from all occupants of the vehicle and the basis for the security arrangements at Narine’s residence.

Equally, Mohamed and his legal representatives must be allowed to state their case, challenge evidence and receive every protection guaranteed by law. That is not weakness. That is the standard Guyana must insist upon.

But fairness does not require silence in the face of apparent danger. A justice system cannot function if witnesses believe that their homes can become sites of surveillance, confrontation or intimidation because they agreed to give evidence.

No One Is Above the Law

The real issue is not whether Government can be questioned. It must be questioned. The real issue is not whether police protection should be examined. It should be examined. 

The real issue is whether a constitutional officeholder may discard the boundaries that protect the court, its witnesses and the public whenever those boundaries become inconvenient.

The answer must be no.

The Leader of the Opposition has a choice: elevate the office through principled, evidence-based and lawful advocacy, or reduce it to a rolling spectacle of confrontation, provocation and disruption.

A democracy cannot survive if its institutions are treated as enemies merely because they demand accountability. And a justice system cannot function if witnesses are made to feel that testifying carries a personal price.

Whatever the final facts reveal, this incident must be investigated without compromise. If laws were breached, then charges must follow. If misconduct occurred, then consequences must be real.

The title Leader of the Opposition may command national attention. It must never place its holder above the law.

 

 

Calls for Confirmation Ignore the Judiciary’s Fundamental Problems

/0 Comments/in , , /by
 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA 

Calls for Confirmation Ignore the Judiciary’s Fundamental Problems

POLITICS AND THE JUIDICARY BY: CHRISTHOPER  RAM –October 14, 2026 

The renewed calls for the substantive appointment of Guyana’s Chancellor and Chief Justice are understandable, given the prolonged reliance on acting appointments to fill the Judiciary’s two highest offices. While this constitutional impasse ought to be resolved, the concentration on confirmation overlooks more fundamental problems of judicial performance, management and accountability. Even if both acting officeholders were confirmed tomorrow, there is little reason to believe that such appointments, without accompanying reforms, would significantly improve the administration of justice.

Over recent years, the Judiciary has benefited from additional judges, improved facilities, electronic filing, virtual hearings and other modernization initiatives, while the Civil Procedure Rules introduced in 2017 were intended to improve the efficiency of civil litigation. These developments are welcome, but increased resources must ultimately be judged by results rather than by expenditure or the number of appointments.

The Judiciary’s own statistics raise disturbing questions. Page 30 of its 2023 Annual Report records that the Demerara Judicial Registry’s clearance rate for Statements of Claim fell from 54.8% in 2021 to 4.7% in 2023, while the rate for Fixed Date Applications declined from 88.3% in 2022 to 25.4% in 2023. In actual numbers, Statements of Claim concluded fell from 204 in 2021 to just 16 in 2023, while Fixed Date Applications concluded declined from 1,653 in 2022 to 486 in 2023.

The Court of Appeal presents an equally concerning picture, with page 26 of the same report recording 361 matters filed in 2023 but only 163 disposed of, representing a ratio of disposals to new filings of approximately 45%, compared with 76% in 2021. These are not allegations by dissatisfied litigants but figures published by the Judiciary itself, which require explanation and, where necessary, corrective action.

There may be explanations involving changes in reporting methodology, staffing or case classification, but the Judiciary should provide them, together with comparable information for 2024 and 2025. The public is also entitled to know the number and age of outstanding cases, the duration of reserved judgments and the measures being taken to reduce delays. Judicial independence protects judges against interference in deciding cases; it does not exempt the administration of the courts from scrutiny.

The temporary appointments of Justices Arif Bulkan and Rafeek Khan demonstrated the contribution that experienced and productive judges can make to reducing outstanding work, suggesting that the issue is not simply the number of judges but how effectively judicial resources are deployed.

The Judiciary enjoys constitutional financial and administrative autonomy under Articles 122A and 222A, including funding through a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, while Article 223 requires the Auditor General to audit the accounts of all courts. Financial independence is essential, but it cannot become an exemption from accountability.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Annual Report records approximately G$3.59 billion in funding and G$3.20 billion in expenditure, supported by financial schedules but without an identifiable accompanying independent audit opinion. The Auditor General’s 2024 Annual Report identifies completed audits of the Supreme Court’s financial statements for 2015, 2016 and 2017, without identifying corresponding audits for subsequent years. The obvious questions are whether later financial statements were prepared and audited, and where the resulting reports may be examined.

Reporting has also been delayed, with the 2022 Annual Report laid before the National Assembly in January 2024 and the 2023 report not laid until November 2025. Reports for 2024 and 2025 are not currently listed on the Judiciary’s website.

As an officer of the court, I regard judicial independence as indispensable, but the Judiciary cannot insist that other public authorities comply with the law and account for public funds while treating its own obligations as secondary. Having more money is no substitute for proper financial management.

Article 127 requires agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition for substantive appointments, but acting officeholders acquire no automatic entitlement to confirmation. Appointments to the Judiciary’s highest offices should follow a transparent, merit-based process assessing legal competence, integrity, experience, administrative ability, demonstrated leadership and a commitment to meaningful judicial reform, rather than treating incumbency as sufficient qualification.

The claims of other qualified candidates deserve consideration. Justice Deo Rishi Persaud was appointed to the High Court in 2004 and to the Court of Appeal in 2017, whereas the present acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, was appointed to the High Court in 2012 and to the Court of Appeal in 2025. These differences do not automatically determine who should be appointed, but they demonstrate why confirmation should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. Neither seniority nor incumbency should replace a proper assessment of merit.

The constitutional appointments impasse should certainly be resolved, but its resolution must not be mistaken for judicial reform. If the acting Chancellor and Chief Justice were confirmed tomorrow, outstanding cases would remain outstanding, reserved judgments would still require delivery, and the questions surrounding judicial performance and financial accountability would remain unanswered.

The fundamental problem is not the absence of substantive titles but the need for effective leadership, efficient judicial administration and meaningful accountability. Unless these deficiencies are addressed, confirmation is unlikely to produce any significant improvement in the delivery of justice.

 

A Final Verdict on Netanyahu?

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

October 7, Three Years On:  Will Israel’s Election  Test Netanyahu’s Political Survival

Three years after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks shattered Israel’s sense of security, Israelis are approaching an election that carries consequences far beyond the country’s borders.

On that day, Hamas militants killed more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals and abducted 251 people. It was a national trauma of historic magnitude: a devastating collapse of intelligence, deterrence, border security, and political judgment in a country long regarded as among the world’s most security-conscious states.

The catastrophe set off a war in Gaza whose human, political, and diplomatic consequences have reshaped the Middle East and profoundly damaged Israel’s standing across much of the world. Gaza has suffered mass killing, displacement, destruction of civilian infrastructure, hunger, disease, and a deepening humanitarian crisis.

Even under a ceasefire, civilians remain trapped in overcrowded displacement sites with inadequate water, sanitation, shelter, and medical care. The guns may be quieter than at the height of the war, but the suffering has not ended.

For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the election expected later this month may be the closest thing to a public referendum on his leadership since the attacks. 

The voters will be asked, directly or indirectly, whether Israel’s longest-serving prime minister bears responsibility for the failures that made October 7 possible. They will also judge his government’s response: the scale and conduct of the Gaza war, the hostages crisis, the breakdown in Israel’s international relationships, the growth of internal polarization, and the risks created by an increasingly volatile confrontation with Iran.

A Failure That Cannot Be Explained Away

October 7 was not merely a military failure. It represented a profound failure of national leadership.

For years, Netanyahu presented himself as Israel’s indispensable guardian: the experienced statesman uniquely equipped to confront Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the wider threats surrounding the country. His political brand was built on security. Yet under his watch, Hamas was able to prepare and execute the deadliest assault on Israeli civilians in the country’s history.

Serious questions remain about how Israel’s political and military establishment missed repeated warning signs, why defenses along the Gaza border were inadequate, and whether strategic decisions weakened Israel’s readiness. Netanyahu’s coalition had prioritized settlement expansion and West Bank security at a time when the threat from Gaza required clear-eyed vigilance. His government was also consumed by bitter internal conflict, particularly over judicial changes that triggered historic protests and raised concerns about the cohesion and readiness of the country’s reserve forces.

Recent reports alleging that regional leaders warned Netanyahu of a potential Hamas operation—claims he has strongly denied—add another layer to an already devastating record. Whether every allegation is ultimately substantiated or not, the larger fact is beyond dispute: October 7 happened on Netanyahu’s watch, after he had spent years telling Israelis that he was the leader best able to prevent exactly such a catastrophe.

No political messaging can erase that question from the ballot box.

Gaza and the Cost of Overreach

Israel had every right to defend its citizens, recover hostages, and pursue those responsible for the October 7  atrocities. Hamas committed an atrocity that deserved unequivocal condemnation.

But a state’s right to self-defense does not eliminate its obligations under international humanitarian law. Nor does it absolve leaders from weighing whether military tactics are advancing long-term national security or multiplying future threats.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Israel received an extraordinary wave of sympathy from much of the world. That sympathy has since eroded dramatically, particularly as images and reports from Gaza documented immense civilian suffering and widespread destruction.

The comparison to the United States after September 11 is unavoidable. America was attacked, mourned, and initially supported by much of the international community. But its later wars, especially Iraq, carried enormous human costs, destabilized the region, weakened America’s moral standing, and left long-term consequences that still reverberate.

Israel faced a similar danger after October 7: that justified anger and legitimate self-defense could become an open-ended conflict with no viable political end state. Three years later, that danger appears painfully real. Gaza remains devastated. Hamas has not been replaced by a credible governing alternative. Palestinian civilian life has been shattered. Israel’s international isolation has deepened. And the conditions that fuel extremism have not disappeared.

A military campaign can destroy infrastructure and eliminate commanders. It cannot, on its own, create a durable political settlement.

The Global Fallout

The Gaza war has changed how Israel is viewed around the world. In many countries, public attitudes have shifted sharply against the Israeli government, especially among younger voters. Questions once confined to the margins of international debate—over occupation, settlements, Palestinian statehood, accountability, and alleged war crimes—now occupy mainstream political discourse.

This shift has brought serious and troubling consequences, including a documented rise in antisemitic attacks and harassment. Antisemitism is not an acceptable form of political dissent. Jewish people everywhere must not be held collectively responsible for decisions made by any Israeli government.,

At the same time, it is neither antisemitic nor illegitimate to scrutinize the conduct of the Israeli state, challenge its military policies, or demand accountability where credible evidence of violations exists. Treating every criticism of Israel as antisemitism blurs an essential distinction and weakens the fight against genuine anti-Jewish hatred.

That distinction matters now more than ever. Democratic societies must be able to oppose antisemitism unequivocally while also insisting that all governments, including Israel’s, comply with the law and protect civilian life.

Israel’s Verdict

Israelis will enter the voting booth carrying grief, anger, fear, and profoundly different visions of their country’s future.

For Netanyahu’s supporters, he remains an experienced leader confronting a hostile region, an emboldened Iran, and enemies committed to Israel’s destruction. They will argue that Israel cannot afford political instability at a time of war and regional uncertainty.

For his opponents, Netanyahu has become inseparable from the failures of October 7, the breakdown of public trust, the hostage crisis, the corrosive polarization of Israeli society, and the absence of a credible postwar strategy for Gaza. They will argue that Israel cannot rebuild security, national cohesion, or international credibility while refusing to confront the failures of the government that presided over the nation’s darkest day.

That is why this election matters.

It is not simply a contest between Likud and its centrist challengers, or between Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot. It is a contest over whether Israel will hold its leaders accountable for a failure of historic proportions—and whether it can chart a path beyond permanent war, permanent insecurity, and permanent division.

The October 7 attacks changed Israel forever. The war that followed changed Gaza forever. It also transformed global politics, exposed the fragility of regional alliances, intensified international divisions, and deepened a humanitarian tragedy whose consequences will endure for generations.

At the polls, Israelis will have their opportunity to render a judgment. The question is whether that judgment will produce accountability—or merely another stalemate in a country still struggling to decide what kind of future it wants after October 7.


The Democratic Illusion: Guyana’s Unfinished Struggle

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ ACCOUNTABILITY♦ INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦ GUYANA

The Democratic Illusion: Guyana’s Unfinished Struggle

Jagan as OL , Burnham as PM and D’aguiar as Finance Min.

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026  

History has a cruel way of repeating itself—not always in identical form, but through recurring episodes of exclusion, unequal power, official indifference, and a public increasingly asked to accept less than it deserves. Across the world, citizens are watching institutions hollowed out while a small political and economic directorate consolidates influence. Guyana is not immune to this pattern. In many respects, we have seen it before.

Our forebears fought courageously for independence, believing political self-rule would create the foundation for dignity, justice, and broad-based national development. Yet independence did not automatically transfer real power to the people. Too often, authority merely changed hands, while the structures that concentrated privilege, controlled opportunity, and silenced dissent remained intact.

Protest action in Buxton

Then came the long struggle to restore democratic elections. The return to free and fair polls in 1992 was a defining national moment. It represented an emphatic rejection of electoral fraud and authoritarian rule. Guyanese believed, reasonably, that the restoration of the vote would also restore accountable government, equal citizenship, independent institutions, and a meaningful say in the direction of the country.

But democracy cannot be reduced to the act of casting a ballot every five years.

For too many Guyanese, the promise of 1992 has become a democratic illusion: celebrated by political elites and their loyal networks, while ordinary citizens remain on the outside looking in. They confront rising living costs, insecure work, weak public services, uneven development, poor infrastructure, and a persistent sense that the country’s great decisions are made elsewhere—behind closed doors, beyond public scrutiny, and without meaningful consent.

This contradiction is especially glaring in an oil-rich Guyana. Never has the country possessed such extraordinary potential wealth, yet never has the question of who truly benefits been more urgent. Citizens are told to be patient while public resources are committed, contracts are negotiated, lands are allocated, and national priorities are set with insufficient transparency. They are expected to applaud impressive growth figures even where that growth does not translate into affordable food, quality health care, reliable water, safe roads, decent housing, or real economic security.

A country is not democratic simply because it holds elections. It is democratic when citizens can access information, challenge decisions without fear, organize freely, demand accountability, and see public institutions act in the public interest rather than in service of political convenience or private influence.

The uncomfortable truth is that Guyana has not yet experienced the broad, sustained coming together of its people around a common democratic demand: that the nation’s wealth, laws, institutions, and future must not be controlled by any narrow power directorate.

Ethnic insecurity, partisan dependency, economic vulnerability, and years of political conditioning have made collective action difficult. These divisions have repeatedly protected the status quo.

Yet the conditions that divide Guyanese should not obscure the conditions that unite them. Whether one lives in Georgetown, Linden, Berbice, Essequibo, the Rupununi, or a riverain community, the essential questions are the same: Who controls the national patrimony? Who benefits from public spending? Who is held accountable when institutions fail? Why should a resource-rich nation still leave so many of its people struggling for basic security and dignity?

The country does not need reckless confrontation. It needs organized citizenship.

A modern Guyanese civic movement should be multiethnic, nonviolent, evidence-based and independent of control by any political party. It should set practical demands that are difficult to evade or distort.

The demand should not be “remove one person and replace them with another.” Guyana has seen enough politics built around personalities.

The demand must be: build institutions that cannot be casually captured, ignored or manipulated by anyone.

A population that remains silent while decisions are made in its name will eventually be told that silence amounted to consent.

Guyanese should not wait until the oil has been pumped, the contracts have expired, the forests have been damaged, the money has been spent and the opportunities have been distributed among the already connected. By then, outrage will be historically accurate but politically late.

The next democratic advance will not come merely from another election cycle or another round of promises. It must come from organized citizens—workers, farmers, professionals, small-business owners, young people, communities, civil-society bodies, and independent voices—insisting that democracy mean more than periodic voting and partisan celebration.

Guyana’s future will not be secured merely by producing more oil, announcing more projects or celebrating larger national budgets. It will be secured when ordinary citizens recognize that democracy does not operate only on election day.

It operates whenever people refuse to be spectators in decisions that determine their lives, their children’s future and the national inheritance.

The question is not whether Guyanese have reasons to speak. The question is whether they will organize early enough, broadly enough and bravely enough to be heard.

Our forebears fought for independence. A later generation fought to reclaim the ballot. This generation must fight to make democracy real: participatory, transparent, equitable, and answerable to the people.

Until then, Guyana may continue to celebrate democracy in ceremony and slogan, while too many Guyanese continue searching for it in their daily lives.

 

Guy Dev Bk board -a gathering of heroes

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Guy Dev Bk board -a gathering of heroes

OPINION BY : GHK LALL October 2026

Just as I suspected.  A Guyana Development Bank board of directors that fits the PPP mold perfectly.  Some names that ring a certain way.  Some faces from barren places.  A dash of color.  People in whom the party, the government, have confidence that they could see a cow, put a bell on it, and call it a crocodile.  A board that looks out for the interests of the government first, so I think.  A board not so dumb as to oversee the blatant, and not put a word or two in the minutes to attest to their pretense at independence, their commitment to the Guyanese people.

One from the commercial sector, another from another department of commerce.  Does have a touch of the sleek.  Who could have objection to these luminaries who know how money turns over, and how to turn it into other things?  I don’t.  For the record, I have had interaction with one of those stalwarts.  Not a bad one, not an inspiring one.  Guvment service is radically different from private enterprise.  May all Guyanese, especially prospective borrowers, remember that little morsel of wisdom. 

What to make of another who changed from a man for the people, to a man for the purse?  Public purse. 

To date, he hasn’t lived up to his weight, other than a willingness to take on double duty and deal with those who upset and unnerve Drs. Ali and Jagdeo.  To that I may have to add, Dr. Singh another sharp ringmaster in this Guyana bank circus. 

When there is a zeal for jobs that the fairer in the party shrink from doing, then I ponder how this thoughtful, innovative, and likely rewarding GDB will turn out.  Rewarding for whom is the puzzle that is now being assembled.  The management team will give the first clues.

Along the same lines, there is another GDB director who is growing in visibility, also due to past willingness to be a witch.  A deformed witch hunter to be exact.  I know, take that from me.  Get a load of that!  A witch hunter now reengineered as a bank director. When a citizen is prepared to contort and distort self, then it is an open question about how much twisting may be in store at the GDB.  I must confess to being awed by the PPP Govt skillfulness in compiling this board.  There are those from the private and public sectors.  There is gender spread (to be interpreted in the most proper terms). 

There is the Guyana rainbow, though cloudy at the edges.  A bit too shaded for me.  There’s politics and the potential for tricks.  Notwithstanding the commercials about a friendly neighborhood bank that welcomes the impoverished, the lickerish, and those who represent nothing but political gibberish.

The invitation is public.  Identify for me, please, the one instance, the one team, that made these political contraptions (banks that work as box-hands, but with a difference: no hand deposited) stand on their own.  Then deliver to the people who could truly benefit from a straight talking, straight producing development bank.  It’s the old story of Guyana: great potential, great regret.  There’s the Wales gas-to-something, that has ended up being nothing, so far.  There’s the great story of ‘review and renegotiate’ all contracts, only for hole to be found, and a house built on it (sanctity of contract).  Whoever is willing to trust those still promising to be faithful to their commitments, that is their luxury, their right.

The GDB, like those mentioned, has potential.  But, when PPP loyalists-new and old, fair and foul, stealth operators or guerilla fighters-stand guard over that bank, Guyanese are in for a ride.  For their sakes, I trust that their seatbelts will hold.  They could be in for a rough time.  Lots of money and lots of love (in contrast to the late Mighty Sparrow’s experience).  The story about to be developed is to determine who gets the hog of it.

 

PART II: THE GUYANA TEST  Can Georgetown Prove Its Gold Is Guyanese?

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA 

PART II: THE GUYANA TEST  Can Georgetown Prove Its Gold Is Guyanese?

OPINION BY:  Hem Kumar October 2026

The problem with illicit gold is not that it is difficult to move. The problem is that, once it has been melted, mixed, bought and exported, it can become almost impossible to distinguish from lawful production.

That is the lesson emerging from the Venezuelan gold now reportedly stranded in the United States. The metal arrived through a high-profile commercial arrangement involving a global commodities trader and Venezuela’s state mining company. Yet U.S. refiners have reportedly hesitated because they cannot satisfy themselves that the gold is unconnected to criminal taxation, corruption, illegal extraction or environmental abuse.

Guyana should pay attention—not because its mining industry is identical to Venezuela’s, but because the test now being applied to Venezuelan gold is the test every gold-exporting country will eventually face. 

♦ Can you prove where the gold came from?

♦ Can you prove who handled it?

♦ Can you prove who was paid?

♦ Can you prove that the metal entering the export chain is the same metal that left a legal mine?

If Guyana cannot answer those questions with records rather than assurances, then its gold sector remains exposed to the same regional laundering economy described in “The Cuyuní Machine.”

 Gold Is Not Self-Identifying

Gold has no nationality once it is melted. A gold bar may bear a refinery stamp, a weight and a purity mark. It may have an export declaration, an invoice and a buyer’s name. None of that, by itself, proves where the gold was mined.

The proof must come before the melting. It must begin at the mine site, with a credible production record tied to a licensed concession. It must continue through the buyer, the transport route, the assay, the export permit, the payment, the bank transaction and the final foreign purchaser.

Every gap in that chain is an opportunity. A miner can declare more gold than a claim could reasonably produce. A dealer can aggregate metal from multiple sources without preserving reliable source records. A shipment can be described as local production after foreign gold is mixed into a lawful batch. A payment can be settled in cash, through a proxy, or through a digital-asset arrangement that obscures the true buyer and beneficial owner.

By the time the gold is exported, the paper trail may look respectable. That is precisely the point of laundering.

The Origin-Laundering Risk

The danger to Guyana is not limited to a dramatic image of smugglers crossing the Cuyuní with sacks of gold. The more serious risk is administrative.

Foreign gold can be brought into Guyana in small amounts through remote crossings, river landings, interior transport routes or unmonitored airstrips. It can be sold into local buying channels. It can be aggregated with Guyanese gold. It can then appear in the system as inventory acquired from miners, traders or licensed suppliers.

Once the material has been pooled, the original source is harder to isolate.

This is why an export certificate is only as credible as the records beneath it. If the underlying dealer records are weak, if production figures cannot be reconciled, if payments are not traceable, or if regulators cannot independently test whether a declared source could produce the volume attributed to it, the certificate may describe a transaction without proving origin.

Guyana has an additional reason for concern.

Regional reporting has identified changing gold flows in which Guyanese gold is reportedly being diverted toward Venezuela by buyers able to offer premiums above the legal market price. That creates an illicit incentive system on both sides of the frontier: Venezuelan gold may seek Guyanese identity, while Guyanese gold may seek Venezuelan prices.

That is not a one-way smuggling story. It is a regional market built on arbitrage, opacity and weak enforcement.

The Records That Matter

Guyana’s authorities should be able to demonstrate, in real time, a complete and auditable record for exported gold.

At minimum, the system should answer five questions for every shipment:

1.Mine source: Which licensed claim or operation produced the gold?

2.Production capacity: Could that operation reasonably have produced the volume declared?

3.Custody: Who possessed the gold from mine to buyer, buyer to assayer, and assayer to exporter?

4.Payment: Who paid for it, by what method, and through which financial institution?

5.Export: Which entity exported it, to whom, through which refinery or purchaser, and under what responsible-sourcing standard?

A country that cannot answer those questions is not operating a full traceability system. It is operating a paperwork system.

There is a difference.

Paperwork records what someone says happened. Traceability allows regulators, banks, auditors and foreign buyers to test whether it could have happened.

The Pressure Points

The Guyanese gold chain has several points where laundering risks can arise.

♦ Production declarations: Regulators must compare a mine’s stated output against geology, equipment, workforce, operating history, recovery rates and prior production.

♦ Licensed purchases: Buyers should be able to identify the source of each acquisition, not merely produce a general ledger at the end of the month.

♦ Aggregation: When gold from multiple miners is pooled, the underlying source records must remain linked to the final batch.

♦ Assaying and refining:Assay results establish purity; they do not establish legality or origin. That distinction must be understood.

♦ Payments: Large cash transactions, third-party payments, unexplained  premiums and settlement through opaque intermediaries should trigger scrutiny.

♦Transport: Gold moving from interior regions must have a documented route, responsible carrier and lawful destination.   

♦ Export reconciliation: The quantity exported must be capable of being traced back to lawful production and licensed purchases.

♦ Beneficial ownership: Authorities must know who ultimately owns the dealer, exporter, buyer and any company receiving the proceeds.

The system is only as strong as its weakest point. An exporter can comply perfectly at the airport while still exporting gold whose history was lost weeks earlier at an interior buying point.

Georgetown’s Burden of Proof

The Government of Guyana has repeatedly acknowledged the threat of cross-border gold smuggling. It has also said that significant resources are being committed to confront it. Those claims should now be tested against public evidence.

The country does not need to reveal sensitive operational details or compromise ongoing investigations. But it can publish basic accountability 

♦ Gold-smuggling seizures by year, district and route.

♦Arrests, charges, prosecutions and convictions.

♦ Suspensions or cancellations of mining, dealer or export licenses.

♦ Inspections conducted at mines, buying houses, airstrips, river landings and border corridors.

♦ Export volumes reconciled against declared production.

♦ Suspicious-transaction reports involving gold purchases, export proceeds, cash conversion or digital-asset transactions.

♦ Referrals between mining regulators, Customs, police, the Financial Intelligence Unit and the Guyana Revenue Authority.

♦ Requests for intelligence-sharing and the results of joint work with Brazil, Suriname, the United States and other regional partners.

Without that information, Guyanese citizens are asked to accept assurances at the very moment the regional gold trade is becoming more opaque and more dangerous.

The Cost of Failing

The immediate loss from illicit gold is obvious: unpaid taxes, stolen royalties and revenue diverted from public services.The larger cost is reputational.

International bullion markets operate on trust. Refiners, banks, insurers and commodity traders must satisfy responsible-sourcing rules and anti-money-laundering obligations. Once a jurisdiction becomes associated with questionable gold, every exporter from that jurisdiction can face more scrutiny, longer delays, higher compliance costs and reduced access to reputable buyers.

That is why Guyana should not wait for a foreign refiner to reject a shipment before it acts. The country should build the evidence chain before the gold leaves its borders.

The ultimate measure is not whether Guyana exports gold. It is whether Guyana can prove that the gold it exports belongs in a lawful international market.

Parliament Is Not a Podcast

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

   Parliament Is Not a Podcast

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Nandlall’s call for substantive opposition engagement is undermined by the Government’s own failure to keep Parliament functioning as the principal arena for national debate. 

Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has delivered a lecture to the Opposition on its democratic duties. He says it must rise above allegations of corruption, local complaints and political exchanges; that it must offer constructive criticism, policy guidance and a credible alternative vision for Guyana.

On its face, that proposition is beyond dispute.

Guyana needs serious debate about the cost of living, Venezuela’s continuing threat to our territorial integrity, climate change, food security, public debt, oil wealth, infrastructure priorities and the long-term shape of the economy. The Opposition, whether large or small, has a responsibility to scrutinize the Government, propose alternatives and demonstrate that it is capable of governing.

 But the Attorney General’s sermon collapses under the weight of the Government’s own conduct.

How can the Opposition perform the role he now demands when the very institution designed for that role—the National Assembly—has been treated as an occasional convenience of the Executive? How can a parliamentary opposition be expected to conduct sustained policy scrutiny when Parliament is summoned only intermittently, and principally when the Government has legislation, spending or other business it considers necessary to process?

The country cannot be told, with a straight face, that the Opposition must elevate national discourse while Parliament—the constitutional forum for national discourse—is left dormant.

The learned Attorney General appears to want the Opposition to discuss the country’s most serious concerns in the “open spaces”: through podcasts, press conferences, Facebook posts and public exchanges. But Guyana did not establish a Parliament, elect Members of the National Assembly, appoint a Speaker and sustain a parliamentary administration at public expense merely to turn public policy into a social-media contest.

A podcast is not Parliament. A Facebook Live is not Parliament. A press release is not Parliament.

 The National Assembly is where ministers are answerable, where questions may be asked on the public record, where documents can be demanded, where laws are examined, where budgets are scrutinized, where motions are debated and where the Government must confront—not evade—the representatives of the people.

That is why the low number of sittings is so deeply troubling. Four sittings over thirteen months is not an active legislative program. It is not a serious commitment to democratic scrutiny. It is certainly not a convincing foundation on which the Government can demand that the Opposition provide rigorous, sustained and policy-driven engagement on every major challenge confronting the country.

If the Attorney General believes the Opposition has been silent on Venezuela, then why has the Government not brought the issue before Parliament for a comprehensive national debate?  Why was the LOO not briefed by the learned, ever-expressive AG.  Venezuela’s posture is not a side issue. It is perhaps the most grave and enduring national-security challenge facing Guyana. It demands more than ministerial statements, selective briefings and political criticism.

It demands a mature, transparent and regular parliamentary engagement that gives Guyanese confidence that their elected representatives are united, informed and prepared.

If the Government wants a serious discussion about the cost of living, let it bring the matter to the House. Let ministers explain why prices remain punishing for ordinary families despite the country’s unprecedented oil revenues. Let the Opposition table its proposals. Let Government defend its policies. Let the country hear the arguments and judge the competing prescriptions.

If food security is a central regional responsibility, let Parliament examine the plans, targets, funding, land-access arrangements, drainage and irrigation systems, logistics and markets required to meet that responsibility. If climate change and sea-level rise are existential concerns, let the Government submit its adaptation strategy, financing plans and coastal-defense priorities to the scrutiny of the people’s representatives.

 And if Guyana is navigating the tension between fossil-fuel expansion and environmental responsibility, Parliament must not be reduced to an afterthought. The management of petroleum wealth, the terms of major agreements, the use of the Natural Resource Fund, local-content compliance, gas-to-energy expenditures and the country’s environmental safeguards deserve frequent and searching examination.

These are not matters to be left to carefully curated media appearances.

Nor should the Government be permitted to use the language of “constructive criticism” as a code for an Opposition that criticizes only on terms acceptable to the Government. Constructive criticism does not mean timid criticism. It does not mean that the Opposition must first secure ministerial approval before exposing failures, waste, secrecy, conflicts of interest or abuse of power.

A healthy opposition must be free to investigate, accuse, challenge and demand answers. It must pursue corruption allegations where evidence warrants them. It must question projects, procurement, land allocations, public spending, contracts and local failures, because those failures affect real people and real communities. Roads, farms, fences, drainage, pumps and other local concerns may appear to be “minutiae” to those in high office, but they are not minor to the farmer whose crop is destroyed, the household whose property floods or the community left without essential services.

The Attorney General should know that accountability does not become trivial merely because it is grounded in the daily hardship of citizens.

Still, he is right on one point: Guyana needs a higher quality of policy debate. But that debate must take place first and foremost where the Constitution intended it to take place—in Parliament.

The Government cannot shutter or marginalize the nation’s principal deliberative chamber, then rebuke the Opposition for seeking alternative public spaces in which to be heard. It cannot restrict opportunities for formal scrutiny and then complain when the national conversation moves to the media, public meetings and social platforms. It cannot weaken parliamentary culture and then feign disappointment at the quality of political discourse outside Parliament.

That is not statesmanship. It is convenience masquerading as concern for democracy.

The direct question to Mr. Nandlall is therefore unavoidable:where exactly does he expect the Opposition to make the substantive contributions he says it has failed to make?

Is it on social media? Is it on a podcast? Is it in press statements? Is it at public meetings? Or is it in the National Assembly, where the Government and Opposition can meet openly, regularly and under the scrutiny of the people?

If the Attorney General’s answer is that these matters belong in Parliament, then the remedy lies largely with his own Government. Convene the House regularly. Permit meaningful debates. Provide sufficient time for questions and motions. Make ministers answerable. Facilitate parliamentary committees. Treat the Opposition as an elected institution, not an inconvenience to be managed.

And if Parliament is to remain largely idle while public affairs are debated in open spaces, then taxpayers are entitled to ask why they are carrying the expense of a parliamentary establishment that is not being allowed to fulfil its central constitutional purpose. The public purse is already under pressure. Pensioners are still compelled to fight for benefits they say are legally due to them. Families continue to confront high food prices and rising living costs. In that context, every dollar spent on underused democratic institutions demands explanation.

 Guyana does not need an Opposition invited to perform democracy on social media. It needs a Parliament that works.

Mr. Nandlall cannot credibly demand an effective opposition while accepting an ineffective parliamentary calendar. The Government cannot call for policy guidance while withholding the principal platform for policy debate. And no amount of eloquence on a podcast can substitute for a living, active and accountable National Assembly.

The Opposition must improve where it has failed. But the Government must first stop denying it the forum in which an opposition is constitutionally meant to function.