Dear Editor,
Speaker of the National Assembly Manzoor Nadir has finally confirmed the date for the election of the Leader of the Opposition (LOO), but he did so while delivering a master class in partisan overreach and historical amnesia. Not content with acting as a moral gatekeeper for the opposition, Mr. Nadir has now pivoted to attacking international partners—specifically the US and Canadian Ambassadors—with a comparative legal argument that is as embarrassing as it is factually hollow.
Mr. Nadir’s attempt to deflect from the lack of a domestic Opposition Leader by questioning the political structures of the United States reveals a shocking lack of legal education. As a presiding officer of a Parliament rooted in the Westminster system, Mr. Nadir should know that the U.S. Constitution does not provide for a “Leader of the Opposition” in the same manner as Guyana. Conversely, in our jurisdiction, the Office of the Leader of the Opposition is a constitutional requirement. To compare the two is to compare apples to anchors; it is a legally illiterate deflection intended to shield the government from accountability regarding the current parliamentary vacuum.
The recent pronouncements by Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, regarding the upcoming election of the Leader of the Opposition (LOO) on January 26, are a flagrant violation of the neutrality required by his high office. By publicly labeling a potential candidate an “international fugitive” and questioning the “moral right” of the opposition’s choice, Mr. Nadir has shed the cloak of an impartial arbiter and donned the jersey of a partisan hack.
Furthermore, Mr. Nadir’s recent outbursts smell of “convenient hypocrisy.” He has no qualms about lambasting our developmental partners today, yet he seems to forget that it was the United States and the international community that the PPP/C relied upon in 2020 to ensure election results were upheld. Enabling his right to sit in the same seat that he now uses to launch attacks on those that don’t align with his party’s agenda. To bite the hand that defended democracy when it suited his party is the height of political ingratitude.
The Speaker’s sudden bravado is particularly jarring when one examines his own political pedigree. Unlike the presumptive LOO, who led a new movement to secure 16 seats and over 109,000 votes, Mr. Nadir has never won a popular mandate from the Guyanese people. His leadership of the United Force (UF) was characterized by mediocrity, and his elevation to ministerial status was a strategic “selection” by Bharrat Jagdeo—not to reward excellence, but to facilitate the swallowing of smaller parties into the PPP/C’s orbit.
By assuming the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, Mr. Nadir has abandoned the decorum required of the Speaker’s Chair. He is no longer an impartial referee; he is a political operative using the gavel as a cudgel. Our demands are clear:
A Formal Apology: Mr. Nadir must retract his factually incorrect comparative statements regarding the U.S. political-constitutional construction and apologize to the U.S. Ambassador.
A Return to Neutrality: The Speaker must cease making partisan pronouncements on the “morality” of the opposition’s choices.
Resignation: Given his inability to maintain the dignity of his office and his clear lack of constitutional depth, it is time for Mr. Nadir to step aside.
There is no place in a modern democracy for a Speaker who is so power-drunk that he prioritizes partisan point-scoring over international relations and constitutional duty. Guyana deserves a Speaker, not a puppet.