Dear Editor,
I write to express deep concern regarding the composition and suitability of the Constitutional Reform Commission as it is currently comprised.
For a constitutional entity to be legally and properly constituted following a change in the substantive representation of stakeholder bodies, it must formally amend its governing documents, and notify the nation of the new structure. Any deviation from this process risks being perceived as disregarding the will of the people as expressed in the 2025 General Elections.
The Honourable Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Mohabir Nandalal, has apparently instructed the Commission to proceed with its work on the basis that it remains “properly constituted.” With highest of respect to the honorable gentleman, this position raises serious legal and procedural questions. The 2025 election results delivered a clear mandate: the WIN Party secured 16 seats and became the largest opposition bloc, while APNU obtained 12 seats . Under Act No. 16 of 2022, the Constitution Reform Commission Act, 2022,five (5) seats on the twenty-one-member Commission were designated for the opposition parties . These seats were occupied by Mr. Vincent Alexander, Mr. Sherwood Lowe, Mr. Ganesh Mahipaul, Mr. Nigel Hughes, and Mr. Timothy Jonas.
Under the new parliamentary configuration, it is submitted that the WIN Party is entitled to three seats on the Commission, reflecting its popular support, while APNU is entitled to two seats (see computation below).
I note that Mr. Nigel Hughes has done the honorable thing and since resigned his position following his party’s poor electoral performance. It would also be appropriate for Mr. Timothy Jonas to similarly step aside, having resigned from his party, which did not take part in the 2025 elections. Likewise, APNU cannot now claim three seats when the electorate has granted them only two, and they must make a choice among their representatives.
Furthermore, the composition of civil society representatives on the Commission raises legitimate concerns. Mr. Aslim Singh, the labour movement representative, has accepted a contractual position as Chief Labour Officer under the Minister of Labour and therefore now a creature of the PPP. Mr. Aslim Singh is no longer a member of the Trade Union Movement executive. Therefore, Mr. Singh can no longer be considered a bona fide representative of the labour movement.
With respect to the Honourable Justice Kim Kyte-Thomas, her continued service on the Commission as the women’s representative while also holding judicial office presents a fundamental integrity issue. A constitution she helps to create may one day come before her for interpretation. This dual role undermines the separation of functions and is inconsistent with the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles, which safeguard the independence, impartiality, and competence of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. It is respectfully suggested that the Chancellor (ag), the Chief Justice (ag), and the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission should address this matter with her directly and urgently.
Questions also arise regarding Dr. Josh Daniel Kandhai, who has reportedly been appointed as a contractual Regional Executive Officer for Region No. 7. On what basis was he selected as the youth representative? His presence raises concerns about the independence of the Commission since he is now a formal creature of the PPP and cannot be the voice of all the youths of Guyana.
As a Hindu, I must ask: was there a National Pandits Council and Hindu Religious Leaders Conference that met to allow the Hindu leaders of Guyana to gather and to elect Mr. R. K. Sharma as the Hindu representative? As a practicing Hindu, I have consulted several pandits and they all made it clear they were never consulted and they do not recognise Mr. R. K. Sharma as their Hindu representative. So who really is he representing? Another PPP stooge? I am not convinced he represents the majority of Hindu voices in the country. Why was a figure from the larger Hindu body like the Dharmic Sabha—such as Pandit Dr. Deodat Persaud not put forward. What about an active legal mind in the form of Pandit Rodley Mathoo from the Maha Sabha or Pandit Madana Rampersaud, a Lawyer, who is part of the Hari Krishna Movement? The Hindu community is not short of talented legal minds and there is certainly no need for Mr. R. K Sharma to squat as their representative.
Finally, the appointment of Minister Keoma Griffith as the Christian representative raises similar concerns, so comical that the joke is now on us the Guyanese people.
In conclusion, by excluding the WIN Party from the constitutional reform process, the government risks sending an anti-democratic signal to the citizens of Guyana—that they have no intention to be inclusive, to build consensus, to respect constitutional conventions, or to maintain the checks and balances essential to a credible constitutional amendment process. If the process is perceived as unfair, the resulting constitution risks means that there can be a court action that will serve as another embarrassment to this country at the CCJ similar to the APNUs’ efforts when they were trying to thwart the elections results in 2025.
The most robust constitutional amendments are products of inclusive processes that allow diverse views to be heard. I respectfully suggest that the WIN Party consider seeking an immediate injunction to halt this process until the Constitutional Reform Commission reflects a fair and reasonable representation of all of Guyana. As it stands, the Commission does not.