Dear Editor,
Joel Bhagwandin’s letter (01/25) does not defend democracy; it dresses up political expediency as constitutional principle and asks us to mistake sanctions and suspicion for guilt and disqualifica-tion. His core pitch—that the Speaker can stall the Opposition’s right to elect its leader because he’s “uncomfortable” with a “fugitive from international justice”—is a dangerous fiction. It’s not institutional wisdom; it’s a blueprint for Speakers to veto mandates they dislike. Let’s dismantle this snake oil, piece by piece, and confront the raw reality it obscures.
Bhagwandin starts with numbers to delegitimize the opposition: 109,000 votes yielding 16 of 65 seats. Fair enough—that’s proportional representation. But who, in the upper echelons of Guyana’s power structure, could have launched a brand-new party, similar to WIN, and seized 16 seats in just 90 days? Astonishing. Not inherited machinery, not decades of ethnic mobilisation—just raw voter energy around a figure promising direct relief amid oil-era frustrations. That’s not a fringe; that’s a thunderbolt mandate from over 100,000 Guyanese who rejected the status quo. To suggest this translates to zero claim on the Leader of the Opposition role is gaslighting: our system entitles the largest opposition bloc to choose its head, full stop. The Speaker referees rules, not “comfort levels” or foreign sanction lists.
Sanctions are not convictions. OFAC designations are executive tools—foreign policy hammers—not Guyanese court verdicts after trial, evidence, cross-exami-nation, and appeal. Mohamed enjoys presumption of innocence under our laws until proven otherwise. Bhagwandin’s demand that he “voluntarily participate in extradition, prove his innocence” flips justice upside down: the state proves guilt; the citizen asserts rights. Would Bhagwandin self-surrender on unproven foreign allegations? Would he demand any MP do so, sans domestic conviction? No—because that’s not law; it’s loyalty tested by submission. Mohamed exercises due process as Guyana affords it: staying put, contesting elections, claiming his seat. No court has unseated him. No constitutional bar blocks his election as opposition leader. Why the rush to sideline him? Because 16 seats in 90 days terrifies the establishment.
Bhagwandin’s “institutional concern” is make-believe. No Standing Order or constitutional clause lets the Speaker vet MPs’ international baggage before an opposition vote. He’s no extradition magistrate; he’s Parliament’s custodian. Once we green light this—blocking based on U.S. Treasury discomfort—any dissident MP becomes fair game via sanctions and Speaker squeamishness. His deposit data dodge (a GYD$5B dip amid OFAC fallout) proves nothing about “no persecution”—it shows banks reacting to risk, not government malice. And invoking Cheddi Jagan? Insulting. Jagan endured PNC rigging, foreign meddling, and jail without bowing to external courts or domestic gatekeepers. He fought for sovereignty under Guyana’s laws, not pre-emptive exile to appease discomforted Speakers.
This isn’t delusion; it’s design. Bhagwandin sells a warped vision where independence means little: foreign sanc-tions trump our Constitution, Speakers moonlight as moral bouncers, and 109,000 votes evaporate if they unsettle power. Who built WIN into 16 seats overnight? Not elites—ordinary voters fed up with transactional betrayals, like PPP’s cash pledge pivot from campaign bravado to “wait for ramps.” That bait-and-switch eroded trust; WIN’s philanthropic vibe filled the void. Now, the response? Warp the rules for expediency.
Guyana governs by its sovereign laws—not Speakers’ vibes, not OFAC edicts. Readers, see your power: this tomfoolery thrives when we nod along. Demand due process. Let courts test allegations. Let opposition MPs elect freely. Bend no rules for one man’s thunder—or tomorrow, they’ll bend yours.