By Marvin Cato | HGP Nightly News |
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Opposition Member of Parliament and leader of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), Amanza Walton, has launched a blistering critique against the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, accusing him of constitutional hypocrisy and dereliction of duty following the parliamentary opposition’s total boycott of President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s sectoral briefing.
The political clash erupted after opposition lawmakers serving on the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Foreign Relations and the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services refused to attend a high-level briefing hosted by President Ali on Tuesday at the Office of the President.
The engagement, arranged through Speaker Nadir to update lawmakers on national economic developments and foreign policy, resulted in empty seats on the opposition benches, drawing sharp rebukes from the Speaker over parliamentary accountability.
Walton, however, pushed back forcefully, rejecting Nadir’s criticism as a partisan double standard.
“I think Manzoor Nadir is a hypocrite, and I want to be very clear about that,” Walton stated during an interview on Wednesday. “What the Speaker needs to do is to do his job.”
Banning ‘Corruption’ vs. Touting Accountability: Walton Slams Double Standard
Walton argued that the Speaker’s sudden invocation of legislative accountability is politically selective, recalling previous controversial rulings from the chair:
- Selective Enforcement: Walton reminded the public that Speaker Nadir previously banned the use of the word “corruption” during debates inside the National Assembly chamber.
- Shielding the Executive: She asserted that the Speaker applies stringent notions of accountability against opposition representatives while systematically shielding the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) from substantive parliamentary scrutiny.
- Procedural Smokescreen: The MP dismissed Nadir’s attempts to frame the issue around procedural dispatch letters rather than addressing the substantive constitutional violations flagged by We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) and the APNU/FGM parliamentary coalition.
“The convenient use of accountability when it applies to other people, and the complete shirking and avoidance of accountability when it applies to him and the People’s Progressive Party/Civic, is nothing short of hypocritical,” Walton argued. “To be clear, the issue of whether a letter was sent does not address the substantive issues raised by WIN, APNU/FGM.”
The Article 51 Fallacy: Presidential Talks Do Not Constitute Committee Sittings
Addressing the legal arguments mounted by the Speaker to justify organizing the engagement, Walton firmly dismantled Nadir’s reliance on Article 51 of the Constitution of Guyana:
- Constitutional Architecture: Article 51 establishes that the Parliament of Guyana consists of the President and the National Assembly.
- The Jurisdictional Limit: Walton maintained that this constitutional definition does not grant the Head of State the authority to transform an informal political consultation at the Office of the President into an official sitting of the National Assembly or a duly convened parliamentary committee meeting.
- Substantive Procedural Violations: The MP challenged the Speaker to clarify whether the assembly was legally constituted under parliamentary standing orders, highlighting that lawmakers were not provided with a formal agenda, meeting documentation, or preparatory briefs prior to the session.
“Article 51 provides that Parliament consists of the President and the National Assembly. It does not transform any meeting called by the President at the Office of the President into a sitting of the National Assembly or a formal meeting of one of the committees,” Walton explained.
‘Speaker Has Failed Abysmally to Protect Parliament’s Independence’
Concluding her rebuke, the Forward Guyana Movement leader asserted that the Speaker’s constitutional mandate is to safeguard the autonomy, procedures, and institutional integrity of the legislative branch, rather than facilitating executive bypasses of parliamentary standing orders.
Walton condemned efforts by state officials to characterize the opposition’s principled stance as an aversion to national dialogue, declaring that framing the procedural boycott as a simple rejection of engagement is “an attempt to insult the intelligence of Guyanese.”
She affirmed that the combined opposition—encompassing WIN, APNU, and FGM—remains resolute in its refusal to attend unconstitutional, post-decision briefings that lack agendas, circumvent the constitutional role of the Leader of the Opposition, and reduce the legislative branch to an administrative rubber stamp.
