By antonio Dey | HGP Nightly News|
The prolonged absence of an elected Leader of the Opposition is now raising the prospect of legal action, as senior opposition figures warn that the government’s and the Speaker of the National Assembly’s continued inaction may amount to a breach of constitutional obligations.
Attorney-at-Law and General Secretary of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Sherwin Benjamin, has indicated that court intervention could become inevitable if the matter remains unresolved.
Benjamin argues that the Constitution clearly provides a mechanism for the election of an Opposition Leader and that persistent delays undermine parliamentary democracy.
“If this matter is not addressed, there is a possibility that we will need to proceed to court to compel the Speaker of the National Assembly to fulfil his constitutional duties,” Benjamin said.
He also rejected claims that the Deputy Speaker’s absence from the country prevents progress, insisting that arrangements could still be made to facilitate a meeting of opposition members to elect their leader. Benjamin accused the government of relying on what he described as repeated and unjustified excuses.
Adding her voice to the issue, Coretta McDonald, Member of Parliament for the Partnership for National Unity (PNCR/APNU), said the government’s approach reflects deliberate delay.
“The issue here is that the government is acting unilaterally. There is a lot of delaying, and it appears they are determined to frustrate the process,” McDonald stated.
However, several legal analysts have urged caution, warning that the courts may be reluctant to intervene in what could be interpreted as internal parliamentary affairs.
Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, speaking exclusively, said the success of any legal challenge would depend heavily on how the case is framed.
“The court traditionally finds it difficult to interfere in matters that are internal to the National Assembly,” Ram explained, noting that unless a clear constitutional violation involving the executive is established, judicial intervention may be unlikely.
Ram suggested that if the Constitution had assigned a direct role to the President in appointing the Opposition Leader, the courts might have been more inclined to intervene. He also pointed out that the continued suspension of parliamentary sittings and committees could raise broader constitutional concerns.
Another attorney, Johnathan Subrian, highlighted a key legal limitation, noting that while the Constitution provides for the position of Opposition Leader, it does not prescribe a timeline for the appointment.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that an Opposition Leader must be elected within a specific timeframe,” Subrian said. He added that constitutional reform could strengthen the opposition’s position if clearer provisions were introduced.
As debate intensifies, the issue continues to highlight wider concerns about parliamentary functionality, constitutional interpretation, and the balance of power within Guyana’s democratic framework.
