By Mark DaCosta- Opposition Chief Whip Tabitha Sarabo-Halley has put a pointed set of questions to Speaker Manzoor Nadir about the private security guards now posted at the National Assembly. In a letter dated 14 November 2026, the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) parliamentarian asks who engaged them, how they were screened and what authority they hold.
She says the guards cannot be identified, cannot communicate adequately in English and have grown increasingly confrontational, and that they seem unwilling to be photographed. Her central argument is that protecting Parliament must never come at the expense of accountability, and that those guarding the nation’s lawmaking body must themselves be properly vetted, identifiable and answerable.
Ms Sarabo-Halley, who also sits on the Parliamentary Management Committee, presents the matter as one of institutional dignity as much as safety. She accepts that security is necessary, but insists it must honour the standing of elected representatives and the integrity of the House. Guards who do not know the members they are meant to protect, and who wear no visible name or credentials, risk becoming a hindrance rather than a safeguard. Her letter then works through its concerns methodically. She asks which company holds the contract for sittings, who approved it and what terms of reference govern its duties.
She wants to know what orientation the guards received on the roles and privileges of MPs, and what language and training standards were set, particularly for emergencies. She presses the Speaker on whether criminal records and employment histories were examined and who is responsible for checking them. She asks exactly whom the guards are contracted to protect, whether the building, the members, staff, visitors or particular individuals, and where complaints about their conduct should be directed.
The most politically charged passage ties the issue to the President’s public warnings about Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan criminal network. President Irfaan Ali has spoken of such threats before. At a regional security forum in 2024, he referred to Colombian and Venezuelan armed groups, Tren de Aragua among them, involved in drug trafficking, people trafficking and mineral smuggling. Sarabo-
Halley argues that when the Head of State himself publicises such a danger, it is reasonable to ask how people are cleared before being trusted with sensitive national institutions. She is careful to say that she is not accusing any current guard of links to any criminal group. Her point is that the Executive’s own rhetoric makes rigorous due diligence all the more necessary.
That caveat matters because the subject is delicate. Guyana has taken in large numbers of Venezuelan migrants, and the gang question has already become a point of partisan contention. On the very day of the letter, Terrence Campbell criticised the President’s remarks that Tren de Aragua is present in the country, and he blamed outdated immigration and migrant-labour policies. Sarabo-Halley’s letter is different in tone. It names no nationality as a threat and asks instead for transparent procedures that would allow any guard’s credentials to be checked.
She closes with three requests. She wants urgent confirmation that vetting has been completed and that every guard has been authorised and briefed. She wants visible identification made compulsory for all private security staff within the precinct. And she wants clear rules for how guards deal with MPs, along with a requirement of fluency in English. Security arrangements, she warns, must not become a source of intimidation or an obstacle to the Assembly’s work.
The setting adds context. The National Assembly has met at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre since the older Parliament Building was left in poor condition, a shift the opposition has previously linked to privacy worries. In 2024, opposition members complained of an “egregious breach” of parliamentary decorum at the venue.
The Speaker’s office, for its part, has defended its approach to safety. Mr Nadir has said that new security facilities at public buildings were completed in 2025, along with scanners and stricter access controls at the Conference Centre. Whether those upgrades extend to the private contractors now in question is not clear from the public record, and that gap is what the opposition wants closed.
The Speaker’s reply will be watched closely. A prompt, detailed answer naming the contractor, the screening process and the chain of command would settle much of the controversy. Silence or vagueness would likely feed the argument that the House is resisting scrutiny of its own arrangements. Either way, the episode touches a principle larger than any one guard: a legislature that holds government to account must itself be able to show who guards its doors and on whose authority.
