Dear Editor,
From all indications, Speaker Manzoor Nadir is waging a quiet but relentless war on parliamentary democracy in Guyana. Undeclared, yes—but unmistakable in its effects. What is being chipped away is not noise or nuisance; it is the very routines and ideals that give our democracy life: open debate, equal representation, and an unfiltered public gaze.
This is the same Speaker who recently found the time to brand himself “outstanding,” yet could not find the urgency to ensure the timely, constitutionally required election of a Leader of the Opposition. The country watched as that process was delayed and disfigured, with independent media locked out of the very sitting where the Opposition Leader was finally elected, leaving state media as the lone curator of the record. A Speaker meant to guarantee fairness instead presided over a stage‑managed spectacle.
Now, in the middle of the national Budget—the single most consequential exercise of parliamentary oversight—Speaker Nadir has turned his sights on the fourth estate. New rules cap journalists in the Dome to a mere five, demand the surrender of IDs for passes, and bar private cameras, forcing the nation to rely on delayed, state‑controlled DPI footage. We are told this is not “restriction,” merely “management.” Citizens are not fools. When you shrink the number of eyes, confiscate identification, and monopolise cameras, you are not managing; you are muzzling.
The Guyana Press Association has already called this out as an attack on media freedom and flatly rejected the Speaker’s claim that there is any current agreement justifying these measures. Editors and reporters have described the arrangement for what it is: unprecedented, arbitrary, and deeply suspicious in a country that has never before treated Parliament like a crime scene to be cordoned off from independent lenses. It is telling that instead of revisiting the decision, the Speaker has doubled down, more offended by criticism than by the assault on transparency itself.
In furtherance of his gross partiality, Nadir’s bias erupted most glaringly during WIN MP Nandranie Singh’s shadow presentation on the 2026 Labour Ministry estimates. Ms. Singh correctly noted the largest budget line—a subvention to the statutory Board of Industrial Training (Industrial Training Act, Cap. 39:04)—was not true ministerial spending. The Speaker interrupted to “correct” her, rebutting her substantive point.This was clearly out of order.
First, it is not the Speaker’s role to fact-check or refute a member’s critique—that falls to Government benches defending their estimates. Nadir crossed from impartial chair to partisan combatant. Second, his intervention was factually wrong. As a former Labour Minister, he should know the Board is a statutory creature, autonomous by law, not a departmental appendage. Subventions are transfers, not controllable expenditure—a distinction his own tenure ought to have etched in stone.
This is no isolated lapse, but a distinct growing pattern of authoritarianism . From stalling opposition leadership to herding media like suspects, Nadir now polices MPs’ arguments, blurring statutory realities to shield government figures. Such gross bias forfeits the Chair’s moral authority.
Parliament is not a private club, still less a party fiefdom. It belongs to the people, including those who did not vote for the government of the day. The Speaker’s authority exists to serve that principle, not to shield a fragile executive from scrutiny. When the Chair is used to delay opposition leadership, to coddle state media, and to fence out independent journalists during Budget debates, it becomes impossible to pretend that this is mere administrative tidying‑up. It is calculated skulduggery on behalf of those who fear what an open Parliament might reveal.
Guyana needs a Speaker upholding neutrality, not enforcing executive convenience. Nadir’s skulduggery—delaying rituals, dimming scrutiny, debating from the Chair—demands public revolt. Restore open access, fair process, and Speaker restraint, or the National Assembly becomes a mere government echo–chamber.
Guyana does not need a glorified gatekeeper at the helm of its National Assembly. It needs a Speaker who understands that legitimacy comes not from praise on party platforms, but from the confidence of a public allowed to see, hear, and judge for itself.
Yours truly,
Hemdutt Kumar
