President Irfaan Ali may have sought to avoid discussing whether he intends to meet officially with Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, but Guyana’s Constitution leaves little room for a President to determine unilaterally whether he will engage the holder of that office, according to political analyst Randy Gopaul.
At what was his only press conference since returning to office in September 2025, held on May 22, Ali sidestepped a question on whether he plans to meet with Mohamed. Asked directly about the issue, the President said he did not “understand” the question before pivoting to a discussion about Guyana’s fuel security strategy and instability in global oil markets linked to tensions in the Middle East.
The exchange comes against the backdrop of a rapidly deteriorated relationship between the two men, who were once viewed as friends but are now bitter adversaries. It also unfolds as the Government pursues legal proceedings connected to a United States request for the extradition of Mohamed- businessman turned politician- and his father, businessman Nazar “Shell” Mohamed.
U.S. authorities are seeking the extradition of the father and son to face an 11-count federal indictment alleging money laundering, wire and mail fraud, customs violations and conspiracy. The charges stem primarily from the operations of their gold-exporting company, Mohamed’s Enterprise, which prosecutors allege underreported gold exports, evaded more than US$50 million in taxes owed to the Guyanese government, falsified customs declarations and attempted to smuggle undeclared gold into the United States. The duo was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in 2024.
However, Gopaul argues that whatever personal or political differences may exist between the President and Opposition Leader, the Constitution contemplates regular engagement between the two offices and, in some cases, makes such engagement mandatory.
“The President does not exercise the prerogative to determine whether he will engage or not. The Constitution imposes obligations that require consultation, meaningful consultation and, in certain instances, agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. That is a legal reality that should not be overlooked and should not be condoned by the people,” Gopaul said.
Among the most significant constitutional requirements is Article 127(1), which mandates that the President obtains the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition before appointing a substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary or Chief Justice. Other provisions require consultation or meaningful consultation regarding appointments to offices such as the Ombudsman, Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioners of Police, Chairperson of the Police Service Commission, members of the Judicial Service Commission and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
According to Gopaul, those provisions reflect the Constitution’s intention that governance should not be conducted solely through partisan channels.
He pointed to Article 13 of the Constitution, which provides for the inclusion of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State. In that context, Gopaul argued that a healthy democracy would see regular engagement not only on constitutionally mandated appointments but also on major national issues.
“In a functioning democracy, the President should want to engage the Opposition Leader on matters affecting the nation. The economy, border controversies, immigration, oil and gas policy, national security and other major issues require collective input and national consensus rather than purely partisan decision-making,” he said.
The issue of constitutional engagement has gained renewed attention amid concerns about broader governance practices. The National Assembly is scheduled to meet on June 5 after more than 100 days without a sitting. Parliament last met on February 14 to pass the 2026 National Budget.
The reconvening of the Assembly followed sustained criticism from civil society organisations and opposition parties, as well as interventions by members of the diplomatic community representing the United States, Britain, Canada and the European Union (ABCEU), who called attention to the importance of parliamentary oversight and democratic accountability.
For Gopaul, the same principle applies to relations between the President and the Opposition Leader.
“The Constitution was designed to encourage consultation and shared governance on matters of national importance. The question is not whether the President wishes to engage the Opposition Leader. In several important areas, the Constitution already answers that question,” he said.
