Dear Editor,
Mr. Manzoor Nadir’s address to the nation on January 20, 2026 raises serious and legitimate concerns about the neutrality and constitutional role of the Office of Speaker. While robust debate is an essential feature of democracy, the Speaker of a Westminster-style Parliament is expected to remain above partisan contestation and personal commentary.
Guyana’s parliamentary system is modelled on the Westminster tradition, where the Speaker is neither an advocate, prosecutor, nor political actor. The role of the Speaker is well established and includes:
Acting impartially and independently, without favour to government or opposition;
Upholding and protecting the Constitution, rather than interpreting it through a political lens;
Facilitating parliamentary processes, not delaying or obstructing them;
Safeguarding the rights of minorities, particularly the Opposition; and;
Respecting and giving effect to the will of the electorate.
Once elevated to the Chair, a Speaker’s prior political affiliations must yield to institutional neutrality. Any perception to the contrary risks undermining public confidence in Parliament itself.
In this regard, it may be instructive to reflect on the example of Sir John Bercow, former Speaker of the British House of Commons. Although he entered the Speakership as a member of the Conservative Party, Sir John became widely respected for his fierce independence from the Executive. On numerous occasions, he ruled against the government of his former party in defence of parliamentary sovereignty and the rights of all Members of Parliament.
Sir John frequently permitted urgent debates and expanded the use of Urgent Questions, thereby strengthening accountability and ensuring that matters of national importance could be ventilated in the House. Through these actions, he reaffirmed a central principle of Westminster democracy: that the Legislature, not the Executive, ultimately controls parliamentary business.
For eleven weeks, Mr. Nadir did not convene a meeting for the election of the Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding that the Constitution treats this as a mandatory obligation rather than a discretionary one. No constitutional provision authorises the Speaker to delay this process based on personal assessments, anticipated legal developments, or concerns about political optics. The Constitution requires the meeting to be convened—nothing more and nothing less.
By failing to act with reasonable dispatch, the Speaker exposed himself to the perception that constitutional duties were being subordinated to extraneous political considerations. This perception was reinforced by elements of his address that appeared to stray into political commentary and personal attacks, including remarks directed at diplomats and commentary on the character and suitability of a presumptive Opposition Leader. How dare Mr. Manzoor Nadir?
Such commentary risks blurring the crucial distinction between the Speaker’s procedural responsibilities and the political choices that properly belong to elected Members of Parliament. Decisions about who should serve as Leader of the Opposition rest exclusively with non-governmental MPs, acting on behalf of the more than 191,000 Guyanese citizens who voted for opposition representation in the National Assembly.
Those votes were not cast to empower the Speaker to evaluate reputations or moral standing. They were cast to ensure representation, accountability, and constitutional balance. A Speaker best serves democracy not by pleasing governments or oppositions, but by protecting Parliament itself.
By delaying the process, moralizing the outcome, and publicly attacking the Opposition’s choice, Mr. Nadir has effectively told those voters that their voices are conditional—subject to his approval. That is not democracy. That is arrogance cloaked in dictatorship. The paragon of democracy, Mr. Peter D’Aguiar will turn in his grave if he is allowed to observe these characteristics.
The authority of the Speaker derives not from personal opinion, but from scrupulous adherence to neutrality, restraint, and constitutional principle. Once the perception of neutrality is lost, it is exceedingly difficult to restore.
For the sake of democratic integrity, constitutional order, and public confidence in Parliament, Mr. Manzoor Nadir should resign. Guyana deserves a Speaker who is, and is seen to be, a faithful servant of Parliament as an institution, rather than of any political interest.