Dear Editor,
Following sustained public condemnation, Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Manzoor Nadir, was compelled to address the nation. In doing so, his remarks ranged from the personal to the public and included what can only be described as unfounded and intemperate attacks against Mr. Azruddin Mohamed. While I hold no brief for the Mohamed family, it is nonetheless troubling to witness the extent to which the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has publicly turned against an individual who, by his own admission, previously rendered assistance from which the Speaker and members of the PPP/C benefitted. As a Guyanese citizen observing these developments unfold in real time, one cannot help but ask: if this can be done so openly to them, what then could be done to ordinary citizens like myself?
During the live broadcast, which has since circulated widely on social media—the conduct and utterances of Speaker Nadir were, in my considered view, wholly unbecoming of the office he holds. His behaviour was disturbing, distasteful, and deeply dishonourable, bringing the Chair of the Speakership into disrepute. Historically, Guyana has had its share of contentious Speakers; however, notwithstanding political disagreements, none have publicly comported themselves in the manner displayed by Mr. Nadir on Tuesday, January 20, 2026.
This public spectacle was a stark reminder of the conduct displayed by then Minister of Education, Ms. Priya Manickchand, at an official function hosted by the outgoing United States Ambassador, Mr. Brent Hardt, in July 2014, an episode that similarly blurred the line between diplomacy and partisan hostility. On this occasion, Speaker Nadir went further by taking a swipe at Heads of the Diplomatic Corps who had called for the election of a Leader of the Opposition, a position mandated by Guyana’s Constitution. In my view, these comments were entirely out of place and have brought embarrassment not only to Guyanese, but to Guyana by extension.
It is difficult to accept Mr. Nadir’s assertion that members of the Diplomatic Corps were “misinformed.” Diplomatic missions are, by their very nature, meticulous in research, protocol, and constitutional awareness before issuing public statements. Consequently, the Speaker’s remarks reflected poorly on the Government and warrant a public apology to the Diplomatic Community. This is not who we are as a people.
I was, however, delighted to hear Speaker Nadir announce that the long-awaited meeting with the non-governmental members of the National Assembly is scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2026, for the purpose of electing the Leader of the Opposition, as required by Article 184 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. This announcement, though belated, is a necessary step toward restoring constitutional order and respect for the rule of law. Article 184 is explicit in its intent and leaves no room for discretionary delay, political manipulation, or administrative obstruction. Compliance with this provision is not an act of goodwill by the Government or the Speaker, but a constitutional obligation owed to Parliament and the people of Guyana.
I was particularly insulted by Speaker Nadir’s repeated use of the terms “fugitive” and “international fugitive” to describe Mr. Azruddin Mohamed. Troubled by this characterization, I consulted authoritative legal and academic sources. A fugitive is generally defined as an individual who deliberately flees or remains in hiding to evade arrest or prosecution (Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th ed.; Oxford English Dictionary). An international fugitive refers to a person actively sought across jurisdictions, typically through mechanisms such as INTERPOL Red Notices or formal extradition proceedings.
Based on publicly observable facts, this description does not appear to apply. Mr. Mohamed has been seen openly attending court proceedings with his father, moving freely within the country, and engaging with law enforcement when required, including being arrested on several occasions. These actions are inconsistent with the established legal meaning of a fugitive. The continued misuse of these terms by the PPP/C and its supporters therefore appears to be a deliberate attempt to stigmatize and publicly shame the Mohamed family. Guyanese are not fools; in an era of real-time information and social media, citizens are increasingly informed and capable of independent judgment.
If there is to be any discussion of individuals who more closely align with the legal definition of a fugitive, one may recall the case of Mr. Su Zhirong. As publicly stated by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, the State has been unable to locate Mr. Su since at least 2022 for the purpose of serving court documents in a matter seeking approximately $50 million, notwithstanding international investigative reporting—most notably by Vice News journalist Ms. Isobel Yeung—which exposed serious allegations of corruption linked to Guyana’s gold sector. This contrast has not gone unnoticed by the public.
Speaker Nadir also sought to justify his attendance at a conference in India. However, Guyanese were not informed of this trip beforehand, raising legitimate questions about transparency and accountability. The Speaker further claimed that his privacy and that of his family had been violated. What he failed to acknowledge is that similar tactics were previously deployed by PPP/C operatives against myself and former President David Granger. We did not allege infiltration; instead, we confronted misinformation with evidence and addressed the matter openly. We did not run, nor did we hide.
Editor, as I conclude, it must be stated plainly that the 13th Parliament of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana is on course to be remembered as one of the worst in post-Independence history. The PPP/C’s record, both in the 12th Parliament and now-of convening sittings only when politically convenient, prioritizing personal attacks over the people’s business, and relying on a Speaker willing to see no evil and hear no evil, has weakened parliamentary democracy. Guyana is in a troubling state under the PPP/C, and I hope all Guyanese are taking careful note of their conduct and approach to governance.