By Marvin Cato | HGP Nightly News |
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Opposition Member of Parliament and leader of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), Amanza Walton, has strongly endorsed the unified decision by We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) to boycott President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s sectoral briefing, warning that the walkout must not be trivialized as a mere scheduling squabble or a dispute over missing agendas.
Instead, Walton framed the collective boycott as a necessary constitutional stand against what she termed an established executive pattern of undermining the National Assembly, bypassing the constitutional office of the Leader of the Opposition, and attempting to engage lawmakers strictly on terms dictated by the presidency.
Her intervention follows President Ali’s decision to proceed with a briefing at the Office of the President on Tuesday alongside only government-aligned members of the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Foreign Relations, after both opposition blocs formally refused to attend.
A Pattern of Institutional Disrespect: From the 13th Parliament to OP Briefings
Walton contextualized the current boycott within a broader administrative pattern that began at the convening of the Thirteenth Parliament:
- Breaking Precedent at Opening: She noted that for five successive Parliaments before the 13th, the sitting Head of State entered the parliamentary chamber to deliver the traditional inaugural address outlining the executive’s legislative agenda. President Ali, however, broke with that tradition by delivering his national address on the exterior steps of the Parliament Building rather than facing lawmakers inside the chamber.
- Selective Committee Assembly: Rather than addressing the National Assembly as a whole, the President has sought to summon selected sectoral sub-committees directly to the Office of the President.
“He could have just as easily addressed the National Assembly, but he refused to so do,” Walton argued. “Taken together, these actions reveal a clear modus operandi. This is not an isolated procedural misstep; it reflects a growing disdain for Parliament as an institution.”
The Article 51 Fallacy: Partisan Caucuses Are Not Parliamentary Consultation
Revisiting the constitutional justifications put forward by state officials, Walton pointed out that the executive is misrepresenting Article 51 of the Constitution of Guyana:
- Presidential Limits Under Article 51: While the provision establishes that Parliament consists of the President and the National Assembly, Walton emphasized that the President’s constitutional status within Parliament does not allow him to act as an executive substitute for the legislative body.
- One-Sided Engagement: Convening an executive meeting attended exclusively by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) parliamentarians cannot legally or politically be branded as a consultation with Parliament.
“At some point, the opposition has to refuse to normalize this kind of conduct that continues to drag Guyana further into the morass of institutional dysfunction and decline,” Walton declared.
Questions of Legitimacy: No Clerk, No Notice, No Parliamentary Record
Walton raised critical procedural questions regarding the legal status and permanent documentation of Tuesday’s gathering at the Office of the President:
- Absence of Parliamentary Protocols: Walton pointed out that a proper sitting of a parliamentary sectoral committee requires formal written notice from the Committee Clerk detailing the business to be transacted, a verbatim record of proceedings, and a statutory mechanism for laying reports before the full National Assembly.
- Lack of Transparency: The President’s post-briefing statements gave no indication of whether an official Hansard or minutes were kept, whether documentation presented to PPP/C members will be transmitted to absent opposition members, or whether a committee report will ever reach the floor of the House.
- The Verdict: If standard legislative procedures, records, and reporting mechanisms were absent, Walton concluded, the session was simply a private political gathering, not an official meeting of a parliamentary committee.
Sidestepping the Constitutional Office of the Opposition Leader
Concluding her analysis, Walton argued that the President’s continued reluctance to engage directly with the Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed, deepens institutional concerns:
- Institutional Respect Over Personalities: Walton stressed that respect for high constitutional office must not depend on the Head of State’s personal assessment of the individual serving in that capacity.
- Controlled Settings: The President’s actions, she maintained, reinforce the view that the administration will only participate in engagements whose participants, rules, agendas, and locations remain under executive control.
Walton reiterated that WIN, APNU, and FGM will continue to reject pseudo-consultations that bypass the constitutional role of the Opposition Leader and treat the legislative branch as a ceremonial extension of the executive branch.
