By Mark DaCosta- Opposition Chief Whip Tabitha Sarabo-Halley has tabled a private members’ bill seeking to abolish every existing appointment to the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) and reconstitute the body so that its political membership reflects the composition of the Parliament elected in September 2025.
The Constitution Reform Commission (Amendment) Bill 2026 seeks to replace the party-specific formula contained in the 2022 parent legislation with a framework based on whether a political party forms the Government or is represented in the National Assembly outside the Government.
In simple terms, the proposal is that the Commission must reflect the current composition of the elected Parliament.
Sarabo-Halley’s move targets what she sees as a fundamental weakness in the existing law: the Commission was established around the political configuration of the 2020 Parliament, while the September 2025 elections produced a substantially different National Assembly.
At the heart of the bill is a deliberate shift away from naming political parties and towards institutional categories. The bill defines the Government as the political party or coalition of political parties “forming the Government and represented in the National Assembly,” while a “Non-governmental political party” is defined as one “represented in the National Assembly that does not form part of the Government.”
That change would allow the Commission’s political representation to adjust with each electoral cycle instead of requiring Parliament to amend the law whenever the composition of the National Assembly changes.
Smaller opposition parties given defined role
The proposed nomination formula would give the President six places, with five names drawn from the governing side and one serving as chair.
The Leader of the Opposition would nominate five members, but only after “meaningful consultation” with the other non-governmental political parties.
Crucially, the bill provides that of those five opposition nominees, “three shall be selected by the Leader of the Opposition and two shall be selected by the non-governmental political parties” other than the party from which the Leader of the Opposition comes.
That provision would give smaller parliamentary parties a guaranteed role in determining the opposition contingent on the Commission.
Sarabo-Halley has argued that this distinction is important because the Leader of the Opposition, despite holding constitutional prominence, does not alone represent every political party outside the Government.
The proposed restructuring comes while the existing CRC continues its work on constitutional reform.
The Commission was sworn in during April and May 2024 under retired Chancellor Carl Singh and has been conducting consultations on possible changes to Guyana’s Constitution.
Its present membership, however, reflects the political arrangements that existed when it was appointed.
The Commission still carries a nominee from the former ANUG–Liberty and Justice Party–New Movement grouping, although those parties did not return to Parliament in 2025. Attorney Nigel Hughes, appointed under the APNU+AFC allocation, also vacated his position after the Alliance For Change failed to secure a place in the new Assembly.
Meanwhile, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) won 16 seats in the 2025 elections and now leads the parliamentary opposition, but has no representation on the Commission.
Sarabo-Halley has been particularly critical of that disconnect, arguing that there is a fundamental difference between being consulted and being represented.
Members of the public can submit proposals to the Commission, but the commissioners are the ones who deliberate on those submissions and ultimately determine what recommendations are advanced.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall had indicated in October 2025 that amendments were being drafted to reflect the new parliamentary configuration. He subsequently took the position that the Commission was properly constituted under the law that existed when its members were appointed.
The Carter Center, in its report on Guyana’s 2025 elections, also recommended a review of the Commission’s composition in light of the changed parliamentary landscape.
Wholesale reset—but work already done protected
The bill proposes a sweeping transition.
Upon commencement of the legislation, “every appointment to the Constitution Reform Commission subsisting immediately before” that date “shall cease and determine,” while “every seat on the Constitution Reform Commission shall become vacant on the commencement of this Act.”
The Commission would then be reconstituted under the new formula.
That wholesale reset could potentially disrupt a constitutional reform process already underway, with written submissions scheduled to close at the end of 2026 and regional consultations expected to follow.
The bill, however, specifically seeks to protect everything already done by the Commission.
It provides:
“Nothing in this Act shall invalidate any act, decision, recommendation, report, consultation, proceeding, or other matter undertaken by the Commission before” commencement.
Existing records, submissions and minutes would remain part of the Commission’s official archive.
The explanatory memorandum states that the purpose is to create a framework that “reflects the contemporary [present] parliamentary landscape of Guyana” and facilitates genuine participation by every non-governmental political party with a parliamentary mandate.
The bill now puts a fundamental question before the National Assembly: whether a body charged with considering changes to Guyana’s supreme law should continue operating under a political formula rooted in the 2020 elections, or be reconstituted to reflect the Parliament elected by Guyanese in 2025.
At stake is not merely the composition of a commission, but who has a seat at the table when recommendations concerning the future architecture of Guyana’s Constitution are being shaped.
