HGP Nightly News – Reports that the Government of Guyana is in advanced discussions with the United States to accept third-country deportees and refugees have triggered a sharper, louder political backlash, with the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) warning that the country could be heading into a high-stakes agreement without the basic safeguards of disclosure, debate, and parliamentary oversight.
In a statement issued Wednesday, FGM leader and Member of Parliament Amanza Walton-Desir said the potential arrangement carries serious constitutional, social, economic, security and governance implications, and cannot be treated as ordinary administrative cooperation. She argued that any policy capable of significantly altering Guyana’s population profile or placing new demands on public services must be openly examined by Parliament and subjected to national consultation before anything is finalised.
Walton-Desir said the central problem is that the public is being asked to accept sweeping consequences without even knowing the fundamentals. FGM demanded clarity on who Guyana may be expected to take in, what categories of migrants would be included, and what independent verification systems would exist to confirm identities, backgrounds and histories. The party also questioned which agency in Guyana has assessed the risks and long-term implications of receiving these individuals.
The statement also pushed beyond principle into logistics, raising the questions many citizens will immediately ask: where would these individuals be placed on arrival, which communities would be affected, and whether those communities have been consulted or even briefed. The party said it wants to know what arrangements would exist to protect safety, social cohesion and service delivery.
FGM further questioned who would carry responsibility for integration and long-term support, which ministries would be involved, and what the scope and cost would be for housing assistance, healthcare, education, social services and employment support. The party asked how long the United States would contribute financially, and what would happen when that support ends.
Housing was flagged as a flashpoint. Walton-Desir asked whether resources could be diverted from Guyanese already struggling to access land and affordable homes, whether special settlements might be developed, and what security and administrative oversight would govern any such programme.
At the heart of the statement was a blunt demand for a public-interest test: how does this benefit the people of Guyana in measurable, sustainable national development terms. FGM said it is not enough to offer political assurances or theoretical gains, arguing that any claimed benefit must be assessed, documented and subjected to democratic approval.
FGM anchored its argument in Guyana’s Constitution, quoting Article 9, which states that sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised through their representatives and democratic organs. The party said pursuing or concluding an agreement of this magnitude without parliamentary debate and legislative approval would amount to an affront to the sovereignty of Guyanese citizens.
While acknowledging Guyana’s longstanding relationship with the United States and expressing support for constructive international cooperation, FGM insisted that any agreement must strengthen national priorities rather than overload institutions already under pressure. The party said transparency, consultation and accountability are not optional extras, but the minimum standard before Guyana makes a decision with potential long-term effects on its society.
