A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has challenged the proposed opposition nominations to Guyana’s Local Government Commission, warning that the process could produce a politically unbalanced body and deepen divisions within the opposition at a critical time for local governance.
In a letter dated August 19, 2026, APNU Leader Aubrey Norton wrote to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, expressing concern over what he described as the handling of the opposition’s nominees and the failure to formally engage APNU in the process.
Norton said APNU was informed that Leona Narine and Leslyn Lowe of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), and Nicholas Chesney of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) had been submitted as nominees for consideration. FGM Leader and lone parliamentarian is Amanza Walton-Desir.
The APNU leader said the partnership was particularly disappointed that it had received no official communication about the proposed nominations, despite previously writing to the Opposition Leader requesting consideration of its nominees for constitutional bodies.
The dispute highlights the complicated political arithmetic within Guyana’s opposition following the 2025 General and Regional Elections. WIN currently holds 16 seats, APNU 12, and FGM one, giving the opposition parties a combined 29 seats in the 65-member National Assembly.
Norton argues that APNU’s 12 parliamentary seats give it a legitimate claim to one of the three opposition positions on the Local Government Commission.
He said APNU had reasonably expected its representation in Parliament to be reflected in the allocation of opposition nominees.
The disagreement is particularly significant because of the Commission’s role in Guyana’s local government system. The Local Government Commission is responsible for key aspects of local government administration, including matters involving local government officers, while municipalities and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils are central to the delivery of services at the community level.
Norton also questioned the implications of excluding APNU when elected councillors from municipalities and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils already form part of the broader local government structure.
He warned that the proposed arrangement could undermine the political balance of the Commission and create an impression that one section of the opposition is being favoured over another.
“Such a course of action also sends a signal of a fractured opposition,” Norton stated.
The APNU leader argued that a more inclusive selection process would strengthen accountability and good governance rather than deepen political divisions.
The dispute comes at a time when the opposition itself has undergone significant political realignment. WIN emerged from the 2025 elections as the largest opposition bloc, while APNU retained a substantial parliamentary presence. The new balance has created fresh questions about how opposition representation should be determined on constitutional bodies and other institutions where nominees are expected to reflect the wider opposition.
Norton is now calling for the selection process to be reconsidered and for APNU to be “appropriately represented” among the opposition nominees.
He maintained that APNU has a legitimate claim to at least one of the three positions and urged Mohamed to treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves.
The disagreement exposes a broader challenge facing the opposition: whether its constituent parties can establish a fair and transparent formula for sharing institutional representation despite differences in parliamentary strength and political identity.
The issue is not simply about who occupies a seat on the Commission. It is about whether the opposition’s parliamentary strength and political constituency will be properly reflected in bodies responsible for administering local democracy.
Norton’s intervention therefore puts pressure on Mohamed to reconsider the nominations before they proceed, while raising an uncomfortable question for the opposition as a whole: can it demand inclusive governance from the government while failing to achieve inclusiveness among its own ranks?
