Dysfunctional framework — Anonymous — Opinion

Dysfunctional framework

October 8, 2026·7 min read

Our democracy functions within a dysfunctional framework. We have a Constitutional Reform Commission charged with consulting the public and formulating proposals for revising our foundation document, but the very composition of that body illustrates how far we have strayed from the principles which underpin any genuine democratic polity.

The problem partly has its origins in the 1980 Constitution along with some items of legislation, but much of the flawed functioning of our political system arises from the unhealthy relationships which have evolved between our oldest political parties, in addition to the authoritarian disposition of the governing party in particular. The constitutional reforms of 2000 onwards attempted to give concrete expression to parts of the aspirational preamble to the 1980 Constitution, particularly as these related to inclusion, but the results were at best imperfect and incomplete, and in one or two cases proved unworkable.

Add to that the fact that the governing party has a disturbing habit of ignoring certain constitutional provisions when it perceives it to be in its interest to do so.

Since the 2025 election there has been another element to add to the mix and that is the appearance of the new WIN party which has now dislodged APNU as the main opposition. While these two parties do not seem to have come to a modus vivendi, the real issue is the relationship between the new entity and the government, since WIN’s leader, Mr Azruddin Mohamed, was once a PPP insider, and according to accounts was close to the President. If that were not enough he is currently subject to extradition proceedings since he has been charged in the US for money laundering, among other things.

President Irfaan Ali simply doesn’t want to deal with him at any level, the Constitution notwithstanding, and was no doubt hoping he would be whisked off to America with some dispatch. But as one magistrate put it, justice will not be rushed; the system simply does not work like that. In the meantime Mr Mohamed is travelling around the country highlighting infrastructural shortcomings, and millionaire that he is, giving assistance in places like Barima. That is not the kind of political challenge which the government will accept with equanimity.

The most recent example of President Ali’s efforts to treat the Opposition Leader as if he does not exist, never mind that he has a constitutional role to play, was when he invited the Parliamentary sectoral committees on Foreign Relations and Economic Services to what were essentially briefings by him, although they were euphemistically characterised as engagements. WIN, which chairs both committees, was not slow to recognise that this was an attempt to bypass the party’s leader, while APNU criticised the fact that there was no agenda and wanted assurances that the meeting was not merely cosmetic.

However, the underlying problem is how the government treats Parliament in what is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. The governing party, which is allergic to scrutiny from any quarter, is inevitably resistant to parliamentary oversight. The 14 committees which were set up including the four sectoral ones were intended to mark a stage towards a more inclusive Parliament, but things have not developed in a way to make that a reality.

As was pointed out in a KW editorial on September 19th, although elections were held on September 1st last year President Ali did not issue the proclamation for the convening of the new Parliament until October 23rd, while the first sitting was on November 3rd, the latest day possible.^[1] Then there was the matter of the swearing in of the Opposition Leader, which was in the hands of the Speaker, and did not occur until January 26th this year. While the nation waited the President gave what should have been his inaugural address to the National Assembly in the forecourt of the Arthur Chung Conference Centre.

None of this is characteristic of a government which has any intention of making Parliament central to our democracy. It is true that the President through Minister Gail Teixeira did contact Mr Mohamed as constitutionally required for ‘meaningful consultation’ and ‘advice’ on certain appointments to the Public, Local Government and Judicial Service Commissions not so long ago, although in the case of the Teaching Service Commission he went ahead and made the appointments unilaterally before an opposition leader had been appointed.

In addition, the uninspiring Clifton Hicken was named Police Commissioner in the absence of an Opposition Leader or a Police Service Commission.

All of that said, APNU has had its own contribution to make to undermining parliamentary oversight. Its members refused to remain for a Public Accounts Committee meeting because Minister Juan Edghill was present, thereby causing it to be aborted because of a lack of a quorum.

This was a short-sighted and ill thought-out decision in the extreme. The PAC is the oldest Parliamentary committee, charged with examining the accounts in the Auditor General’s report and supervising the functioning of the Auditor General, among other duties. In the last Parliament the government had appeared to go to some effort to ensure there was no quorum through the expedient of some of its members absenting themselves, presumably so its expenditure could not come under scrutiny. And now APNU is facilitating this because it cannot distinguish between a political, albeit justified, call for the removal of a minister in relation to the Barima sinking, and the constitutional responsibility of a Parliamentary committee to monitor government expenditure, whoever its members are.

If Parliament, with its irregular meetings, formulaic speeches, lack of discussion and defective committee system is hardly reflective of a healthy democracy, then local government is no better. The government attempts to keep control at this level through finance, by bypassing local bodies as it does in Georgetown when it institutes projects without reference to the Mayor & City Council, and through the Regional Executive Officers in particular, who are not elected and to all intents and purposes are answerable to it.These officials can override elected ones.

The most egregious case is that of Region Ten, which has been without a Chair or Vice-Chair for a year following an election deadlock in October 2025. The rules are clear in such circumstances, and require the REO to call another election in the first instance. There is now reason to believe this would not end in a second tie, but he simply has not fulfilled the requirement. It has all the hallmarks of the government trying to avoid having a WIN Chair. The matter has since gone to court, so that decision is awaited with interest.

But if all that were not enough, our election processes themselves are dysfunctional and in urgent need of reform. This has been pointed out by a series of international observers over the years, not least by the Carter Center.

Among other things we are saddled with an Elections Commission that is political in character and was initially intended to be a temporary arrangement, but which became institutionalised. At the bottom of the problem was the lack of trust between the two old warhorse parties and their refusal to believe in the neutrality of any individual, let alone an entire committee.

The situation is now aggravated by an impasse on Gecom owing to the fact that as the new main opposition, WIN has not appointed any member of it. Under the Constitution the President appoints three members, while the other three are appointed by him on the advice of the opposition. The problem is that once appointed a Commissioner has a right to remain until they die or resign. Even APNU cannot force a Commissioner chosen by it to go and it seems Mr Norton has in any case not asked any of them to resign. APNU too is not surrendering the remnants of power it still holds.

The practical consequence of all this is that local government elections probably cannot be held at the end of this year as constitutionally mandated.^[2] So much for democracy.

As mentioned earlier, even the Constitution Reform Commission charged with consulting the public and then drafting proposals for constitutional reform includes no members from WIN. At first the Attorney General had agreed the act governing the Commission’s establishment should be amended, but now he has backtracked on that. WIN is introducing a Bill to change its composition, but given the government’s parliamentary majority there can be no confidence that it will be given time, or if it is, it will pass.

There are too all the other recommendations contained in the most recent Carter Center report including the reform of election management bodies.^[3] The government seems to be in no hurry to address any of these issues. A better functioning democracy is not part of its manifesto.

The best-known scandal concerns the failure to confirm a Chancellor and Chief Justice over many years. The most recent person to comment on this was Justice Courtney Abel in the course of a most eloquent presentation in Jamaica.^[4] In a remark in a different context, although one which applies in this instance, he said: “[P]ressure seldom arrives wearing a name badge. Power does not always command. More often, it arranges the atmosphere.” That is surely an experience which is not alien to our judiciary.

For all of that if there is any glimmer of hope in our broken democracy it lies with the judiciary. Some judges have been making what are clearly independent decisions, most recently in relation to the totally inactive Commissioner of Information.There may be other significant cases which in due course could be laid before them, such as the extension of tenure for the Auditor General, although he is past retirement age.

Judges cannot do what politicians do, but when given the right cases they can make decisions which have an impact on the workings of our dysfunctional state.

References

President’s parliamentary overture - Kiskadee Watch — kiskadeewatch.com ↩
Local gov’t elections work plan on hold - GECOM - Kiskadee Watch — kiskadeewatch.com ↩
Carter Center Report supports govt’s electoral reforms – AG – Department of Public Information, Guyana — dpi.gov.gy ↩
'Visa restrictions, acting appointments are modern pressures on judicial independence' — Justice Abel - Kaieteur News — kaieteurnewsonline.com ↩

Source

Dysfunctional framework in Kiskadee Watch, October 8, 2026

The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) yesterday said it has no authority to determine the validity of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s nominees to the commission or resolve the impasse over its opposition-appointed members, which has prevented the activation of a completed work plan for Local Government Elections (LGE). LGE are due before the end of this year. In a statement responding to matters raised by Mohamed’s We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, GECOM said the nomination and appointment of commissioners are governed by Article 161(3)(b) of the Constitution. “GECOM is not the authority vested with responsibility for determining the validity of such nominations or appointments,” it said. The commission added that it therefore has no locus standi to intervene in, adjudicate upon or resolve any impasse concerning persons nominated by the Opposition Leader for appointment as commissioners. Mohamed has advised President Irfaan Ali to appoint attorneys Roysdale Forde SC, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva as the three opposition-nominated commissioners following consultations with APNU and the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM). The President has not given a substantive response to the nominations. The incumbent opposition-nominated commissioners—Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin and Desmond Trotman—were appointed on the advice of former opposition leaders of APNU. They have rejected WIN’s calls for their resignation and maintained that their tenure is protected by law. ... Leader Aubrey Norton told Kiskadee Watch on Thursday that neither he nor any other political leader ... the authority to remove ... . He said ... could arise if a commissioner ... , while any wider ... Mohamed has argued that the opposition side of GECOM should reflect the present composition of the National Assembly, where WIN holds 16 seats, APNU 12 and FGM one. The impasse has prevented the commission from meeting and has placed preparations for LGE on hold. GECOM disclosed yesterday that its Secretariat has prepared a comprehensive work plan identifying the activities and tasks necessary for the preparation and conduct of the polls. However, it said the Secretariat cannot independently activate or implement the plan, as the commencement of the electoral programme requires a decision and direction from the commission. Once activated, the timelines in the plan may also require adjustment depending on the date of activation and the operational circumstances prevailing at the time. “The existence of a Workplan therefore demonstrates that the Secretariat has undertaken the necessary planning and preparatory work. Its implementation, however, is dependent upon the Commission exercising its statutory functions and providing the requisite direction,” GECOM said. The Carter Center recently expressed “considerable concern” about the stalemate, warning that without a fully functioning commission, GECOM could be unable to organise local government polls within the statutory timeframe or implement reforms ahead of the next general elections. ... WIN has said it intends to contest elections in all local authority areas.

Carter Center Report supports govt’s electoral reforms – AG – Department of Public Information, Guyana

dpi.gov.gy · 2026-05-20

Carter Center Report supports govt’s electoral reforms – AG – Department of Public Information, Guyana # Carter Center Report supports govt’s electoral reforms – AG May 20, 2026 The final report issued by The Carter Center on Guyana’s 2025 General and Regional Elections validates the government’s electoral reforms and transparency measures implemented following the controversial period during the 2020 elections. Speaking on Tuesday’s “Issues in the News” programme, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, described it as “a good report” that highlighted several important improvements in the country’s electoral process. The attorney general said the Carter Center observed that voting in Guyana was conducted in a calm and orderly manner, with polling stations opening on time, adequate materials available, and procedures properly followed throughout the process. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, “They have ticked all the boxes,” Nandlall stated, while referencing the report’s assessment of the opening, voting, closing and counting processes. According to the AG, the Carter Center noted that Guyana’s 2025 tabulation process occurred against the backdrop of the attempted subversion of democracy during the 2020 elections, which had eroded public trust and then prompted legal and procedural reforms aimed at increasing transparency. “They [Carter Center] have acknowledged new procedures, new legal reforms intended to decentralise that tabulation process…and to bring greater transparency to that process,” Minister Nandlall said. He pointed to the Carter Center’s finding that legislative changes made after the 2020 elections contributed to a more transparent and efficient tabulation process that reflected the will of the electorate. Carter Centre team members “These are highly commendable statements coming from the Carter Center,” he noted. The minister highlighted the report’s observations that tabulation across all 17 centres was generally conducted in a reasonable or very good manner, with greater transparency achieved through the public posting of Statements of Poll (SOPs) at polling stations and the timely uploading of those documents to the Guyana Elections Commission website. “All of these are new measures incorporated into the law,” the AG explained. While the Carter Center noted that some of the new procedures contributed to delays in the tabulation process, the attorney general said the report also found that the system functioned efficiently with few technical issues, allowing observers and members of the public to monitor the results closely. Minister Nandlall also addressed some concerns about the pace of electoral reforms, noting that many recommendations are already being addressed through a phased implementation process. He noted that some reforms require constitutional changes and are currently being addressed through the Constitutional Reform Commission, which has already begun its work. The commission is preparing to launch a nationwide public consultation to gather recommendations from citizens across Guyana. “So the process is an ongoing one,” he stated, while expressing confidence that many of the planned reforms will be completed before the next election cycle. ### Ministry of Public Utilities and Aviation; MARAD – Notice to Mariners; No. 144 (2026) ### GWI – Procurement of Works; NCB-GWI-GOG-W193-2025, NCB-GWI-GOG-W144-2026

'Visa restrictions, acting appointments are modern pressures on judicial independence' — Justice Abel - Kaieteur News

kaieteurnewsonline.com · 2026-09-25

(Kaieteur News) – Modern threats to judicial independence rarely present as explicit commands or direct violence. Instead, they operate by subtly “arranging the atmosphere” to teach judges which decisions carry high personal and institutional costs, prominent legal scholar Professor Justice Courtney Abel warned regional jurists. Delivering an address on current tensions between judicial independence and the rule of law in the Caribbean, Justice Abel used a series of real-world pressure points, including travel restrictions, prolonged acting appointments, and emerging technologies, to question whether judges across the Commonwealth Caribbean remain the true authors of their rulings or are being reduced to mere scribes. ... need not announce ... name,” Justice Abel stated ... decisions, at what point does a private immigration ... Drawing on his personal experience as a former judge in Belize, Justice Abel described how subtle pressures compromise judicial autonomy long before a formal constitutional breach occurs. “Power does not always command. More often, it arranges the atmosphere,” he noted. “It may prolong an acting appointment until expectation and insecurity merge. It may criticise a judgment without confronting its reasons. It may alter security arrangements… No direction is given. No threat is recorded.” “The old assault was visible. The judge was removed. The court was closed. The judgment was ignored,” Justice Abel added. “The modern assault may leave no fingerprints. It may never tell the judge what to decide. It may merely teach the judge what decisions are costly.” Turning to internal constitutional vulnerabilities, Justice Abel targeted Guyana’s decades-long failure to substantively fill its top judicial posts, the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice. Article 127 of Guyana’s Constitution mandates agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition for substantive appointments, a design that has generated a 20-year stalemate. Justice Abel characterised this reliance on long-term acting roles as “permanent temporariness”…a contradiction that undermines institutional security. He questioned whether heads of judiciary can remain fully secure while political actors hold the power to decide if their appointments will ever be finalised, urging regional leaders to move away from inherited adversarial politics toward conciliatory, “truly Caribbean” frameworks for consensus. ... invoked the postcolonial Caribbean concept of freedom ... “self-authorship”…the capacity of a people and its institutions to write their own ... ies rather than ... out scripts written by external actors ... , judicial authorship ... that judgments remain strictly bounded by law, reason, and evidence…free from ... , foreign, or ... “AI may assist judgment. It must never become its hidden author,” Justice Abel concluded. “For when the judgment is complete and the final story told, the judge must remain its author…and never merely its scribe.”