“𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲—𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬…”
At the outset, it is important to establish a fundamental democratic fact that is often conveniently overlooked in the current discourse. While the presumptive nominee for Leader of the Opposition secured approximately 109,000 votes, this represents roughly 15 percent of the voting population (registered voters, 2025). In parliamentary terms, this translated into 16 seats out of 65 in the 2025 national elections. By contrast, the governing party secured 36 seats, an outright majority and an improvement from 33 seats in the previous term (2020-2025)—a clear landslide mandate.
Democracy, therefore, does not confer legitimacy based solely on the support of one’s base. Leadership—particularly leadership of the Opposition—requires credibility not only with those who voted for you, but also with the remaining 85 percent of the electorate who did not. It is to this wider public that accountability is owed. Persistently retreating behind the votes of 109,000 supporters while refusing to confront grave allegations that carry international legal consequences does not strengthen democracy; it undermines it.
It is within this context that the Speaker of the National Assembly’s statement last Tuesday (Jan 20th 2026) must be properly understood. When the Speaker observed that “I am not comfortable calling a meeting for the election of a Leader of the Opposition when the presumptive nominee is a fugitive from international justice,” he articulated not a partisan preference, but a legitimate institutional concern, albeit some may argue that such consideration falls outside of his remit.
For the first time in Guyana’s history, the National Assembly comprises a Member of Parliament who is sanctioned by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for notorious allegations including large-scale gold smuggling estimated at approximately GYD 300 billion, drug trafficking, and links to the Maduro regime in Venezuela. These allegations are not speculative, nor politically manufactured. They are the product of at least a decade or more of investigation by U.S. authorities, forming the basis of an OFAC designation and related judicial proceedings.
This reality places Guyana in an unprecedented constitutional dilemma, one that arguably falls outside the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution. Article 155(1)(a) states that no person shall be qualified for election to the National Assembly if, by virtue of his or her own act, that person is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power or state. While this provision was not designed with OFAC sanctions in mind, the present circumstances raise serious and unavoidable questions of constitutional fitness and democratic integrity.
Much has been made by the presumptive nominee of alleged political persecution by the administration. However, this narrative collapses under objective scrutiny.
If the government were intent on persecuting him, it possessed ample legal authority under Guyana’s Anti-Money Laundering framework—particularly following the imposition of OFAC sanctions—to freeze his financial assets and effectively prevent him from contesting elections. This did not occur. Instead, he was allowed to withdraw his funds and exit the banking system unimpeded.
The data tells this story clearly. Between June and July 2024, the precise period during which the OFAC sanction was imposed, total private sector deposits declined by approximately GYD $5 billion, or 0.78 percent. A review of deposit trends from 2021 to 2025 confirms that this was the only statistically significant outlier decline during the post-COVID period. The reasonable inference is that this decline corresponded to the termination of banking relationships following the sanction—not to state-sponsored financial persecution. In fact, deposits rebounded immediately thereafter.
These facts fundamentally weaken claims of political victimization.
It is also worth recalling, given the frequent invocation of the late President and PPP/C founding leader Dr. Cheddi B. Jagan, that during the most oppressive periods of our political history—marked by racial polarization, economic collapse, and personal suffering—Dr. Jagan never centered the national struggle around himself. He and the leaders of the PPP/C in that era fought to liberate Guyana from poverty, chaos, and institutional decay, not to insulate themselves from accountability. The contrast with today’s circumstances is unmistakable.
If the presumptive Leader of the Opposition is indeed innocent of the charges that underpin the OFAC sanction and related indictment, and if he is genuinely committed to the well-being of Guyana and its people—including the 85 percent who did not vote for him—then the minimum, decent course of action is clear: subject himself to the judicial process, voluntarily participate in the extradition proceedings, answer the charges, prove his innocence, and return. No foreign court convicts without evidence. If none exists, he will prevail. His credibility would soar, and his political standing would be immeasurably strengthened.
This is an unprecedented dilemma in Guyana’s democratic history. Not knowing how to deal with it is not a failure of leadership—it is a rational response to circumstances that fall outside constitutional design. As such, the Speaker’s position is defensible, understandable, and institutionally responsible. I am not aware of any comparable case anywhere in the Commonwealth.