BY the time the parliament meets on Monday afternoon, the country will have a new Leader of the Opposition (LOO). If all goes as planned, the new LOO will be OFAC-sanctioned controversial businessman and parliamentarian Azruddin Mohamed.
Guyana would have reached a new height of infamy and would have been stained. Guyana’s parliament would never be the same again.
Guyana would have joined the other nations that have become famous for having fugitive offenders or convicts elected to high offices, in this case, the LOO.
This is the first time the parliament will have an ‘opposition leader’ with 11 active charges hanging over his head and facing US extradition. This is the first time a sitting opposition member of parliament has been accused of cheating the treasury out of more than US$50 million.
This is the first time a sitting opposition leader would be accused of gold smuggling, mail fraud, terrorist links, and other such crimes. This is the first time the post of LOO will be held by a non-politician and a political novice.
The parliament’s reputation will be forever stained because of the opposition party, the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), insistence that Mohamed, and only Mohamed, must be elected to the constitutional post, which they won.
So, for WIN, it’s about putting Mohamed, one man, ahead of the entire country’s reputation. They seem unbothered despite warnings from civil society, the governing party, the private sector, and independent commentators to change their nominee. WIN does not care about political accountability or ethics. It solely cares about putting Mohamed first at the expense of the country.
It’s a gamble, hoping it will pay off in the long run. Let’s analyse.
Firstly, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, fulfilled his constitutional responsibility in ensuring the country has an opposition leader. He must be commended for the statement and explanation of why it took the time to convene the sitting.
Nadir is the custodian of Guyana’s National Assembly and acted admirably when he was safeguarding the integrity of the parliament, consistent with parliamentary practice across Commonwealth democracies.
He, no doubt, examined all facets of the election of a fugitive offender as an opposition leader, and was grappling with the issue of individuals having criminal status serving in legislative bodies.
Many countries, in fact, have enacted laws that prevent convicted individuals from holding parliamentary office, but what makes the current situation distinct is the issue of fugitivity rather than conviction.
Nadir’s stance was ideal for the current politics in Guyana. It was not too much or too little.
Secondly, Mohamed’s election to the post of LOO means that Guyana’s parliament will be in uncharted waters. Electing a leader with suspected or pending criminal charges to a country’s highest office can have profound, systemic consequences on governance, economic stability and the rule of law.
Studies show that these kinds of candidates often win by appealing to the common people or using their personal connections and support networks. But their time in power usually leads to weaker government systems and more corruption.
People with a history of criminal behaviour are very motivated to stop justice from being done.
They use their power to either influence or stop investigations against them. This means Mohamed could use the authority and influence he now has to break the case and affect the judges and police officers who have to testify against him.
These leaders often act outside the law while pretending to enforce it.
This creates a situation like a “mafia rule” or “lawless rule,” where the country’s security forces are used to protect the leader instead of the people. We need to closely watch what he does in the coming days and weeks. He might also use his position as an opposition leader to increase his use of political pressure and violence against his rivals.
Thirdly, when people with criminal records are chosen for leadership positions, it creates doubts about how strictly the law is followed and whether the opposition party, WIN, is truly legitimate. It also puts a lot of stress on democratic systems, as they have to work under strong political pressure.
WIN would notice that the government will refuse to have dealings or reduce dealings with Mohamed. It will choose to engage through a third-party intermediary instead of holding face-to-face and direct interaction until the cloud of sanctions is removed from over his head and Guyana’s parliament. The risk is too high for the government.
Finally, the real power will be wielded in parliament by the executive or government. Their parliamentary agenda will be untouched and unscarred by the election of Mohamed. WIN cannot hold the experienced PPP accountable. WIN and Mohamed will learn as the PPP/C parliamentarians are going to play their usual politics.
The oppositional leader will find he is even more ineffective than Aubrey Norton, Joseph Harmon, David Granger, Robert Corbin and Desmond Hoyte, even with his questionable wealth.
The public is justified in worrying. This situation does not send the right signals about Guyana. It has consequences that will be felt in the Caribbean and farther afield.
Monday will be a terrible day for Guyanese politics. It will be a dark day for upholding the rule of law, integrity and justice.