The Attorney General’s Sudden Discovery

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.

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.

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.

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