Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mr. Joel Bhagwandin’s letter of January 25, 2026, entitled “The Speaker’s position is defensible, understandable.”[1] While the author presents his case with conviction, his central hypothesis rests on a claim of unprecedented circumstance that is not supported by the historical record of Guyana’s Parliament. More critically, the constitutional precedent he advocates for would establish a concerning departure from established norms regarding the separation of powers and the presumption of innocence.
Mr. Bhagwandin characterizes the current situation as “an unprecedented dilemma in Guyana’s democratic history,” suggesting there is no comparable Commonwealth case. This overlooks numerous instances in our own nation where sitting parliamentarians have executed their duties while facing serious criminal allegations. The principle that has consistently prevailed is that the judiciary determines guilt or innocence, while the legislature conducts its business according to its own rules. To assert otherwise now is to ignore this history.
A brief review confirms this precedent:
. President Irfaan Ali (2018) served as an opposition MP while facing 19 criminal charges, which were discontinued only after he assumed the presidency.
. Sitting APNU+AFC Ministers (2018)—Winston Jordan, David Patterson, and Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine—fulfilled their roles while private criminal charges for misconduct in public office were before the courts.
. Former Minister George Norton (2020) faced criminal charges while serving.
· MP Anil Nandlall (2017) likewise faced criminal charges while serving.
· Dr. Bheri Ramsaran (2015) was charged with a criminal offense during his tenure as Minister of Health and MP against a woman for an act carried out in front of a Court of Law.
I wish Mr. Joel Bhagwandin, can apply his mind to ascertaining the ability to pay for the mortgages associated with the numerous super-properties apparently owed by Minister Zulfikar Mustapha and Minister Susan Rodriques. Mr. Bhagwandin should use his position to urge the Integrity Commission to properly conduct themselves and investigate these allegations and then, Guyana may have more evidence to allow for two more to join the list of Members of Parliament who may have to face the Courts for alleged criminal activities.
In none of these cases did a Speaker of the National Assembly intervene to effectively disqualify the members from their parliamentary role or from eligibility for parliamentary leadership based on those pending charges. Previous Speakers to Mr. Nadir, irrespective of their professional background, correctly understood their remit to be administrative, not judicial. They allowed the separate judicial process to run its course, thereby upholding the critical demarcation between the branches of government.
It is this demarcation that is now at risk because of these unschooled and unconstitutional statements from Mr. Manzoor Nadir. The Speaker’s stated discomfort, while perhaps understandable on a personal level, ventures into a domain beyond his constitutional authority. The legislature’s role is not to pre-judge members based on external allegations, but to allow them to represent their constituents until a competent court rules otherwise. To grant the Speaker a discretionary power to disqualify based on unproven allegations creates a perilous mechanism for future political manipulation.
Mr. Bhagwandin’s suggestion that the presumptive nominee must first “prove his innocence” in a foreign jurisdiction before assuming a parliamentary role inverts a foundational legal principle. The right to challenge extradition is itself a fundamental legal process. Asserting that an individual must submit to a foreign court’s process as a precondition for domestic parliamentary procedure fuses and compromises the independence of our sovereign institutions.
The strength of our democracy lies in its institutions adhering to their defined roles with consistency and neutrality. Selectively applying a new, extra-constitutional standard to one member, while a history of different treatment for others remains, undermines institutional credibility far more than the presence of any accused individual within Parliament.
The responsible course is clear: the National Assembly should follow its own precedents and procedures, allowing its members to be chosen by their peers. The judicial processes, both here and abroad, must be allowed to proceed independently, without the legislature imposing its own pre-emptive verdict. To do otherwise would not resolve a dilemma, but would instead create a dangerous and genuinely unprecedented erosion of our democratic norms.
I want to humbly advice Mr. Bhagwandin, you are young yet, please stay in your lane. You are no political and constitutional expert; those areas of study requires years of disciplined training that you certainly do not possess.