A sharp exchange has erupted between Speaker of the National Assembly Manzoor Nadir and Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Annette Ferguson, after Ferguson launched a scathing accusation that Nadir is actively undermining parliamentary democracy in Guyana. In a strongly worded letter published on May 19, 2025, Ferguson charged that the Speaker has consistently suppressed opposition voices, alleging that motions and proposals from non-government MPs are routinely dismissed, sidelined, or ignored altogether. She further accused Nadir of using his position to limit scrutiny of public spending, citing what she described as a pattern of “political bias” that has eroded the Assembly’s role as a check on executive power.
In a rare move, Speaker Nadir issued a rebuttal on May 22. Citing procedural adherence, Nadir stated that the time allocated for scrutiny of budget estimates is determined jointly by the Government and Opposition through the Parliamentary Business Sub-Committee and approved by the full Assembly. “The Speaker is bound by that Resolution,” he said.
Nadir further rejected the notion that scrutiny of financial papers is limited, claiming that debate ends only when all questions are exhausted. To bolster his position, Nadir provided statistics from the 12th Parliament: of 1,357 questions submitted by the Opposition, 1,315 were approved. Of 31 motions received, 12 were approved. He stressed that questions and motions not in line with the Standing Orders cannot be placed on the agenda.
But MP Ferguson struck back on May 23 with a pointed and comprehensive response, asserting that the she “stand[s] by every word written in my letter of May 19, 2025.” The parliamentarian dismissed Speaker Nadir’s rebuttal as ineffective, reiterated her central claim that his leadership is the “worst in recent history,” and has undermined the integrity of the National Assembly. She described the 12th Parliament as having been reduced to “a rubber stamp,” citing inaction across several key parliamentary committees—most notably the Committee on Security, which has never met, and others plagued by chronic delays and low attendance.
Ferguson firmly stated, “For the public record, I wish to state that at no time has there been agreement between the Government and the Opposition regarding the scrutiny of Financial Papers (with the exception of budgets, where there is agreed timing for agencies).” She emphasised that her May 19 letter reflects the broader and persistent reality of how the Assembly operates.
Addressing Nadir’s comments on motions and questions, Ferguson noted that, like many of her colleagues, she has had motions initially approved and placed on the Order Paper, only to see them later withdrawn without proper justification. In particular, two of the motions focused on the rising cost of living were pulled just before debate, citing violations of Standing Order 22—an explanation she described as opaque and inconsistent.
Ferguson also challenged Nadir’s claims of impartiality in the approval of motions. She pointed to her own experiences—two motions on the cost of living were initially approved and later withdrawn under Standing Order 22. No-confidence motions against Health Minister Dr. Frank Anthony and Speaker Nadir himself, submitted in 2021, reportedly “disappeared” under the pretext of legal review by the Attorney General’s Chambers.
She further cited motions by other MPs on national tragedies and natural resource management that remain unaddressed years after submission. According to Ferguson, the reason given—that the matters were sub judice—did not hold, as no court proceedings were active when the motions were tabled.
While Nadir emphasised the volume of approved questions, Ferguson criticised the quality of responses permitted under his speakership. She cited the example of the “200 new taxes” question, accusing Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh of evading the issue with a “disrespectful” response, one she claims Speaker Nadir allowed without challenge.
Further, the parliamentarian argued that many of the questions posed by the Opposition are routinely diluted and that the responses allowed under Speaker Nadir’s oversight often fail to meet the standards of a functioning parliamentary democracy.
Ferguson’s critique underscores her broader concern that Parliament is being used to shield the government rather than scrutinise it. This exchange is the latest in a series of confrontations highlighting a deteriorating relationship between Guyana’s government and opposition factions, raising broader questions about transparency, accountability, and the state of democratic institutions in the country.
