Dear Editor,
Supa D Subadar correctly stated that Article 184(1) of the Guyana Constitution grants the Speaker excessive, near-dictatorial authority that operates above meaningful constitutional restraint. Such power must be struck down or curtailed—either by judicial review or as a first order of business when Parliament convenes. The abuse lies particularly in the Speaker’s use of “indefinite time” to delay or obstruct parliamentary processes. This was never the intention of the Constitution’s framers. The absence of a specific time frame was meant to allow reasonable administrative flexibility, not to enable arbitrary paralysis of Parliament. When “indefinite” becomes permanent, it transforms discretion into domination.
Guyana must never again be held hostage by any Speaker of the National Assembly. No single officeholder should possess the unilateral power to suspend democratic accountability or override the will of elected representatives. I fully concur with you, Supa. What Guyana urgently requires is meaningful constitutional reform—not cosmetic adjustments. The Executive Branch must be co-equal with Parliament and the Judiciary, subject to effective checks and balances, as is standard in functioning democracies.
The 1980 Constitution—ushered in by an allegedly rigged referendum and reinforced by Party Paramountcy and the Sophia Declaration—does not reflect democratic governance or fundamental freedoms. It centralizes power, weakens parliamentary oversight, and denies real agency to the Guyanese people, who vote for political parties rather than individual representatives accountable to constituents. Under this system, party leaders select candidates from closed lists, entrenching cronyism and insulating parliamentarians from public accountability. That is not democracy—it is control. Guyana deserves a constitutional order that empowers citizens, restrains authority, and guarantees that no office—Speaker included—stands above the people, the courts, or Parliament.