Guyana stands at a crossroads. With oil wealth now flowing, global attention fixed on a small South American nation once peripheral, the stakes have never been higher. But a strong economy is only one pillar of freedom and progress; the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are the others. On that front, Guyana’s institutional trajectory is worrying.
The longest-running symptom of institutional stasis is the persistent failure to appoint a substantive head of the judiciary. For more than two decades the posts of Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice have been filled by acting officials.
One such individual is Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, acting Chancellor of the Judiciary. Her forced sidelining recently that may have occasioned early retirement has exposed the fault lines of political influence in the judicial sphere.
The absence of definitive appointments is more than a bureaucratic problem. Last year March, United Nations Human Rights Committee Vice President of Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais, raised concerns that the judiciary “is… under some degree of influence and control by the Executive President … entailing the politicisation of the Judiciary and delaying the appointment of Judges.”
So what does this mean for the ordinary Guyanese without wealth or connections? It means the promise of equal justice under the law is increasingly hollow. If the judiciary is perceived as weak, malleable, or subject to political convenience, then access to justice for the poor becomes a mirage. High-power interests capture the agenda, cases drag on, and outcomes become less predictable.
This concern is magnified by the ongoing saga of Azruddin Mohamed, the presumptive opposition leader facing extradition to the United States. Mohamed’s case has generated a broad perception that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government under Irfaan Ali is colluding with foreign authorities to exact political vengeance and deny him his right to due process under the law.
From this perspective, the PPP/C is seen as leveraging international legal instruments—not merely to address alleged crimes—but to neutralize a rising political adversary. The timing—US sanctions in 2024, Mohamed’s rapid political ascent, and the September 2025 elections—reinforces the perception that the legal measures are politically motivated. If true, this sets a dangerous precedent: the combination of political power and foreign legal processes could suppress legitimate opposition, eroding democratic competition.
Meanwhile, the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2025 places Guyana 80th out of 143 countries. This ranking, combined with the judiciary impasse and high-profile politically sensitive cases, paints a worrying picture: the institutions meant to uphold rights and fairness are increasingly questioned.
If Guyana’s democracy is to survive its oil boom and new global prominence, several steps are urgent:
- Swift substantive appointments for Chancellor and Chief Justice, ensuring independence from political influence.
- Transparency and safeguards in judicial operations, to prevent perceptions—or realities—of political interference.
- Protection of due process for all, including opposition leaders like Mohamed, so that politics cannot weaponize justice.
- Accessible courts for ordinary citizens, guaranteeing that wealth or connections are not prerequisites for fairness.
The promise of Guyana’s future will be determined not only by how much oil is pumped, but by how fairly the laws are applied. If the judiciary becomes a tool of political expedience, then democracy is at risk—not tomorrow, but today. Ordinary citizens deserve a system where justice is blind, accessible, and impartial. Only then can Guyana’s potential as a fledgling democracy and oil-rich nation be fully realised.
