HGP Nightly News – Amanza Walton-Desir is sounding a sharp warning: Guyana’s Parliament cannot keep drifting without an elected Leader of the Opposition, and the Constitution, she says, leaves no room for shortcuts, excuses, or “alternative arrangements.” In a statement issued on Sunday, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) Member of Parliament said the law is already written and it is not optional.
Citing Article 184(1), Walton-Desir stressed that the Leader of the Opposition must be elected by the non-governmental members of the National Assembly at a meeting chaired by the Speaker. She underscored that, constitutionally, there is no other lawful mechanism for that election.
Her intervention comes as the 13th Parliament, sworn in on November 3, 2025, remains without a scheduled sitting to complete the process. Walton-Desir pointed out that no date has been announced for Speaker Manzoor Nadir to preside over the meeting required to elect the Opposition Leader, despite months of public debate and rising political tension.
The numbers on the opposition side are clear. WIN holds 16 seats, APNU has 12, and FGM has one. That means the opposition bloc can elect a leader once the proper forum exists. But Walton-Desir argued that the key problem is that the forum is not being provided. She pushed back against suggestions that the responsibility rests solely with opposition parties.
In her view, the ability to convene Parliament sits within the wider state and parliamentary machinery, and without Parliament being called, the constitutional process cannot even begin. The Speaker, she argued, does not act outside the system; the system has to move for the Speaker to chair the election meeting.
Walton-Desir also warned that the stakes go far beyond party competition. She framed the situation as a test of whether constitutional rules are treated as binding or treated as paperwork that can be ignored until convenient. And she cautioned that the damage is not always immediate, but it is cumulative.
“Constitutional systems do not collapse suddenly,” she said, warning that they are weakened when clear requirements are downplayed, misrepresentation becomes routine, and silence is mistaken for neutrality. What is tolerated now, she argued, becomes the precedent later, possibly under a different government and against those who defend today’s delay.
