Dear Editor,
On November 27, 2025, at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, the President (and since I am not writing to him directly, I outrightly refuse to address him here in this medium as Mr. President) addressed the media regarding the delayed election of Mr. LOO MP Azruddin Mohamed—a meeting originally scheduled for November 3, 2025. According to Stabroek News, he stated: “From what I’ve seen in the news, the Speaker is traveling now, so you don’t expect the Speaker to convene a meeting while he’s traveling or on his overseas trip. I’m sure that the Speaker and the National Assembly will convene a meeting at the appropriate time and have that process completed.” When asked again in January 2026, he pivots to a rather shallow, unstable, capricious, and absolutely fickle answer, “Why ask me of the LOO using a particular gender – we do not know whether it is a he or a she!” These explanations are clearly inadequate for a constitutional obligation.
The delayed Mr. LOO’s election raises fundamental questions about how our democracy values rights and representation. Consider the treatment of remanded citizens: a Guyanese charged with a non-violent offence often cannot exercise democratic rights or benefit from the
presumption of innocence. They must pay substantial legal fees and petition the High Court for bail while awaiting trial. During my decade practising criminal law in Guyana, I witnessed this oppressive system firsthand. I represented hundreds of clients in bail petitions at the Chief Justice’s Chambers in Georgetown, seeing how the system in the magistracy stripped away pre-trial rights from the charged and was forcing guilty pleas from innocent persons. Many were faced with incarceration for periods longer than a sentence in relation to the offence charged while supposedly “innocent”. However, being a kind and considerate judicial officer, there were examples given to me by the Chief Justice (ag.) where he would outrightly refuse bail, and there were times when he would postpose the matter for a few days for him to deliberate, because as he said, “It’s a matter of one’s liberty.” His Honour obviously recognised the role that a citizen played in society. Statistics are not readily available, but outright refusal has been necessary in only a few cases in my estimation. This experience underscores core democratic values: justice and our collective civic responsibility. If ordinary citizens face such barriers to their rights, how can we justify denying an elected parliamentarian the ability to assume his constitutional role?
Article 9 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana states: “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution.” A true democracy ensures every voice has a chance to be heard. Yet despite diplomatic interventions from First World countries regarding the urgency of electing our Mr. LOO, the government’s response suggests democracy has been abandoned. Parliamentarian Ms. Walton-Desir has advocated for recognition of Article 9. The Executive body of the PPP/C Administration remains unmindful.
Mr. Norton’s experience and political acumen equip him to champion democratic change. His commitment to halting resource exploitation, ending shortages, improving workers’ lives, fighting corruption, and defending human rights makes him a credible leader. He encourages open dialogue and collective action. Now, he must act decisively for immediate democratic progress. As the Stabroek News (Jan 9, 2026) notes, the rule of law requires decisive action, not words. Mr. Norton must speak up for Mr. LOO’s rights and demand that a meeting is convened to elect and swear in Mr. LOO. Delay further undermines democracy.
I recall attorney SC Bernard DeSantos at No. 51 Court, Corentyne, Berbice, representing the accused Headmaster of Tagore Memorial, charged with a serious sexual offence, in front of Magistrate Krishndat Persaud during his No Case Submission. DeSantos was known to have a commanding presence and to execute a withering assault on the prosecution’s case. He observed: “Our society is such that it takes a certain pedigree of a person to be really heeded in our society, that their claims to a right to innocence goes unheeded, and if you are from the lower pedigree group, injustices face you.” This statement aptly describes the 2026 Mr. LOO election impasse. If Azruddin Mohamed lacks the “certain pedigree” our society demands, injustice will follow, and societies where such pedigrees are found, like the US, Canada, and the U.K., their Diplomats have to do the job of championing Democracy, as all three Diplomatic Statements to the Press Corps unequivocally demand in this case.
I conclude—this disenfranchisement of an elected parliamentarian is a chronic threat to our democracy. I join with the Diplomatic Corps in declaring: It is time to ensure that no voice is silenced. The government’s suffocation of Mr. Azruddin Mohamed’s constitutional right to assume his role as Mr. LOO is an injustice that undermines the foundation of our democratic system. Action must be taken immediately to convene the long-awaited meeting. It is an overdue constitutional process. The 7.5% of this government’s time in Office, which has elapsed, is, undoubtedly, going to count as a totally wasted effort come 2030 when it faces the electorate, under the rules of democratic good governance, because at that time abuse of incumbency and manipulation will not assist whatever posture it ventures to do.