President Irfaan Ali’s national address on Wednesday has drawn sharp and coordinated criticism from opposition figures, with leaders of the Forward Guyana Movement and We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) parties accusing the Head of State of overpromising, underdelivering, and failing to confront pressing national realities.
Amanza Walton-Desir and Azruddin Mohamed, both parliamentarians and leaders of their respective parties responded forcefully to the President’s more than two-hour presentation, which outlined what Ali described as an ambitious, multi-year development agenda. While the government framed the address as a roadmap for Guyana’s future, others argue it exposed a widening gap between rhetoric and results, as well as unfulfilled campaign commitments by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
Mohamed, the presumptive Leader of the Opposition, – given the 16 seats allocation in the National Assembly- focused his criticism on what he described as a broken campaign promise. He reminded the nation that on August 26, during the election campaign, President Ali pledged that if the PPP returned to office, every adult 18 years and older would receive $200,000 for Christmas, assuring Guyanese that “we will have a beautiful Christmas.”
“The PPP lied to us again. The nation is angry,” Mohamed said, noting that the President did not announce the promised payment in his address. Instead, Ali indicated that a $100,000 cash grant would be paid in January 2026. Mohamed described the revised figure as “meagre,” particularly in the context of Guyana’s oil revenues. Since 2019 the country has earned in excess of US$6 billion.
He argued that public funds should not be treated as a reward for political obedience, contending that once the PPP took office, it “went back to their corrupt ways.” Mohamed said many Guyanese had planned their finances around the promised grant and expressed sympathy for public servants and members of the disciplined services who, he said, are forced to eke out a living on “meagre” incomes.
Mohamed also renewed his call for the PPP’s promised delivery of a bonus for public servants, insisting that “what leaders say is equivalent to a moral contract with the people.” In some of his harshest remarks, he accused the President of disrespecting the nation by beginning the address more than 35 minutes late and by delivering what he described as “hours of fluffy language.” He also claimed that funds, including the $55.7 billion taken in May, were being used to “drain the coffers” for electoral purposes, asserting that the cash grant was treated as “a campaign tool, not a promise.”
Walton-Desir’s critique took a different but equally pointed direction, focusing on what she described as critical omissions in the President’s presentation. In a detailed statement, she said that despite the length of the address, there was “no acknowledgement of the geopolitical tensions unfolding around us, no reference to national security, no articulation of Guyana’s posture, and no indication that the operating environment in which this agenda must exist is shifting in real time.”
“That omission matters,” Walton-Desir said, arguing that development planning cannot be separated from issues of stability, continuity, and preparedness. She warned that the President failed to explain how the proposed development agenda would be protected if regional tensions were to escalate or if serious disruption, including armed conflict, were to arise.
While noting the use of terms such as risk and resilience, Walton-Desir said leadership is not defined by “buzzwords” but by whether they are grounded in present realities. She described the address as a missed opportunity to speak plainly to Guyanese about how the state is assessing regional developments and approaching national preparedness. “When that opportunity is not taken, it is not a matter of tone or emphasis. It is a failure of leadership,” she said.
Both Mohamed and Walton-Desir also criticised the format and setting of the address. They questioned why it was not delivered in the National Assembly, where parliamentarians are traditionally present, and took issue with what they described as a national event in which diplomats occupied the front rows of the audience.
The criticism underscores broader public frustration over unmet expectations, particularly among Guyanese who recall assurances made during the August campaign season that specific bonuses and grants would be paid. The gap between those promises and the President’s latest announcement has become a focal point of discontent.
Meanwhile, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), which holds 12 seats in the National Assembly, has not issued a statement on the President’s address, leaving its position on the speech and the ensuing controversy unclear.
The reactions to the address sharpen an already deepening divide between the government’s sweeping development narrative and opposition demands for accountability, fulfilled promises, and honesty with the public. With frustration mounting over unmet commitments and unanswered questions about national preparedness, the President’s speech has become less a unifying vision and more a flashpoint in a growing crisis of trust between the state and the people.
