Editor,

I note that the Clerk of the National Assembly, a man who has my abiding respect, has responded to the public outrage against the banning of the use of the word “corruption” in parliamentary debates by the Speaker, Manzoor Nadir. In seeking to explain the Speaker’s position the Clerk noted that we follow the British practice and further relied on the Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, considered the authority on parliamentary practice and procedure. I wish to make two observations in this regard.

First, Erskine May Parliamentary Practice is a publication that was released in the year 1844, for context, ten years after slavery was abolished. While Erskine May remains a respected guide, it must be understood that parliamentary norms and practices have evolved over time to meet the demands of the present. In fact, a simple review of the Hansard records of modern parliaments, including those of the United Kingdom (in which Erskine May was published) Canada and other commonwealth countries, clearly demonstrates that the term “corruption” is not prohibited in contemporary parliamentary discourse. Is the Speaker suggesting that we as a Parliament, are to be shackled by a centuries-old framework that other nations have already adapted to foster transparency, accountability, and open debate?

Secondly, the argument that prohibiting the term “corruption” somehow upholds parliamentary decorum is not only misguided but also counterproductive. Parliament must serve as a space where difficult truths are confronted, and critical issues are debated without fear or censorship. The fact that the United Nations and several other multilateral bodies have implemented entire legal and regulatory frameworks to address the problem of corruption demonstrates the significance of this issue – it is one that undermines governance, erodes public trust, and impacts the lives of ordinary citizens. Guyana is a State Party to the United Nation Convention on Corruption as well as the Inter-American Convention against Corruption. The reality is that modern parliaments in the Commonwealth do not shy away from using the term “corruption” because it is central to meaningful discourse about governance and accountability. Why, then, should we?

It is not enough to simply enforce outdated rules without considering their relevance or impact on democratic discourse. I urge the Speaker to recognize that parliamentary rules must evolve to serve their intended purpose: to foster robust debate, encourage accountability, and uphold the dignity of our Parliament. The prohibition of the term “corruption” fails on all counts. Accordingly, I renew my call for the removal of the ban of the word corruption from Parliamentary debate and I urge a review of the list of unparliamentary expressions.

Editor, I will conclude by addressing those who believe that pursuing this matter is a waste of time. I reject that notion. This matter is of extreme importance because it underscores a broader issue: when rules or practices that hinder accountability go unchallenged, they become entrenched, allowing critical issues to slip through the cracks. Dismissing this debate as unnecessary sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that outdated or counterproductive norms in Parliament can persist unexamined. Parliament must be a space where representatives are unafraid to confront these issues head-on, ensuring that it remains a forum for robust, transparent, and meaningful discourse in service of the people. After all, Article 9 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana provides that Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives. The people of Guyana want to talk about corruption!

Sincerely, Amanza Walton Desir, MP.