By Marvin Cato| HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Dr. Vindhya Persaud, faced a fresh wave of intense criticism on Friday after investigative reports and leaked civil society records directly contradicted her claims regarding the consultative process for the controversial Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2026.
The brewing scandal centers on a contentious provision introduced by Minister Persaud that sought to keep Guyana’s newly established sex offenders registry confidential and closed to the general public. Defending the draft legislation on her official Facebook page, Dr. Persaud had asserted that “on the question of the model of the registry to be used in the legislative framework, it is the widespread consultation that overwhelmingly advocated for the establishment of a closed model registry.”
However, reports across several sections of the media indicate that consultation records from prominent civil society groups in Linden and Georgetown paint a vastly different picture. According to political pundits and leaked documents now circulating in the public domain, stakeholders expressed unanimous opposition to offender anonymity and deep dissatisfaction with the government’s legislative approach.
The leaked files reportedly outline 17 distinct criticisms and structural recommendations highlighting a collective demand for total transparency—chief among them being a total rejection of the “closed” registry model.
The stark contradiction has prompted opposition lawmakers and civil society advocates to demand the immediate public release of all official consultation reports, with some alleging that the administration attempted to fabricate public consensus to shield sex offenders.
Dr. David Hinds, co-leader of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and an opposition Member of Parliament, spoke exclusively with HGP Nightly News, stating that the breakdown in credibility will be aggressively challenged when the bill arrives before the Parliamentary Special Select Committee.
“Well, I’m looking forward to see who she consulted, what organizations she contacted, whether the organizations [were actually] consulted,” Dr. Hinds stated.
The Member of Parliament stressed that he intends to demand a comprehensive forensic look at the demographics and organizations the ministry allegedly engaged.
“Did you speak with organizations? Did you speak with women’s organizations? Which women’s organizations?” Hinds questioned. He added that the select committee must verify whether child rights organizations were included in the discussions to ascertain the true origin of the recommendations presented to the National Assembly.
Dr. Hinds noted that analyzing the exact demographics is critical to determining how vast the ministry’s outreach truly was and whether the feedback matched the legislative framework defended by the minister.
Though the executive branch has since pivoted—with Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo announcing Wednesday that the government will abandon the closed model in favor of a fully public database—the opposition maintains that the apparent manipulation of consultation data warrants a rigorous parliamentary inquiry to ensure transparency and restore institutional trust.
