Sadly, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) authoritarian regime in Guyana has flagrantly disregarded these norms by engaging in advanced negotiations, nearing a formal pact, with the United States to accept third-country deportees and refugees. This move, shrouded in opacity and executed without the barest semblance of public engagement, exemplifies a profound disrespect for the Guyanese people and undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy.
At its very core, this decision reflects a cavalier attitude toward the Guyanese citizenry, about 48% of whom languish in abject poverty amid an oil-fueled economic boom that has disproportionately benefited a select elite. The regime’s failure to consult the populace – through parliamentary debate, public hearings, or even a rudimentary referendum – constitutes a blatant violation of participatory governance principles articulated in Article 13 of our Constitution, which mandates that the people be actively involved in decisions affecting their welfare. Instead, the PPP/C has opted for unilateralism, treating the acceptance of foreign deportees as a fait accompli negotiated in the shadows of bilateral diplomacy. This is not statesmanship; it is authoritarian overreach, reminiscent of regimes that prioritise geopolitical expediency over domestic legitimacy.
The international implications are equally alarming. By agreeing to serve as a receptacle for individuals deported from the United States, often third-country nationals who are non-felons or refugees but whose backgrounds remain unvetted by Guyanese authorities, the PPP/C risks entangling Guyana in the complexities of U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration. Such arrangements, while framed as “goodwill gestures,” could erode Guyana’s bargaining position in future negotiations, particularly concerning our own expatriates facing deportation.
Moreover, they invoke questions of reciprocity under customary international law: What concessions has the U.S. extracted in return? Will this pact expose Guyana to liabilities under the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which we are a party, without adequate safeguards? The regime’s assurances that only “skilled” individuals will be accepted, with costs borne by Washington, ring hollow in the absence of transparent protocols. International relations demand equity, yet this appears to be a subservient accommodation that compromises our national interest.
At home, the decision exacerbates the plight of impoverished Guyanese, who already grapple with inadequate housing, healthcare, and employment opportunities. How can a government that claims to champion the vulnerable justify importing foreign labour, potentially competing for scarce resources, while nearly half the population subsists below the poverty line? Frankly, this is not mere policy misstep; it is a clear demonstration of contempt for the electorate, many of whom voted in the 2025 elections expecting representation, not dictation. The unilateral nature of this agreement amplifies concerns about governance in a nation where oil revenues have swelled state coffers, yet trickle-down benefits remain illusory. It begs the question: If the regime deems consultation unnecessary on such a consequential matter, what other decisions are being made behind closed doors?
This worry is compounded by the current vacuum in parliamentary oversight: Guyana enters 2026 without a duly elected Leader of the Opposition. The 13th Parliament convened in November 2025, yet Speaker Manzoor Nadir has inexplicably delayed the election process, leaving opposition voices (representing a significant portion of the electorate) silenced. In this context, who holds the PPP/C accountable? The absence of an Opposition Leader violates Article 110 of the Constitution, which envisions a balanced legislature to check executive excess. Without this counterweight, the regime operates with impunity, rendering mechanisms like select committees and question time ineffectual. This constitutional impasse not only stifles debate on the deportee agreement but also weakens Guyana’s democratic credentials on the global stage, where bodies like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights scrutinise such lapses.
Several pressing questions arise from this ill-conceived policy, demanding immediate answers. First, what vetting processes will ensure these deportees pose no security risks? Reports indicate they may include non-criminals, but without full disclosure, how can we rule out threats to public order? Second, where will these individuals be housed and integrated? In a country where housing deficits afflict the poor, will they strain already overburdened social services?
Third, what economic impact will this have on local employment? Skilled migrants could displace Guyanese workers, further entrenching inequality. Fourth, how does this align with our obligations under CARICOM protocols, which emphasize regional migration harmony? And finally, what fiscal burdens might Guyana incur if U.S. funding proves insufficient or temporary? These inquiries underscore the regime’s recklessness, prioritising foreign alliances over national cohesion.
It is clear that the PPP/C’s decision to accept foreign deportees without consultation is a watershed moment of betrayal, eroding trust in our institutions and exposing vulnerabilities in our international posture. As a Senior Counsel and advocate for justice, I call upon all Guyanese, civil society, the diaspora, and international partners, to demand transparency and accountability. We must insist on parliamentary ratification of any such agreement and the swift election of an Opposition Leader to restore balance. Guyana’s sovereignty is not for sale; it belongs to the people, who deserve better than this regime’s disdainful unilateralism. Only through collective vigilance can we safeguard our democracy and ensure that prosperity benefits all, not just the privileged few.
