APNU was never invited. Ganesh Mahipaul, APNU’s Member of Parliament, has said so plainly: no member of the APNU Parliamentary Opposition was invited to the engagement with the German Bundestag delegation. Whatever Attorney General Anil Nandlall is alleging, it cannot be attributed to APNU.
On Friday, Mr. Nandlall posted photographs of himself with the visiting delegation at Public Buildings. Beneath them he added: “Several Opposition Members of Parliament, who were invited, did not await the delayed arrival of the visiting delegation.”
Invited? Not APNU. Not one of its MPs.
So which Opposition Members did he mean? He names no MP, no party and no invitation list. Several commentators have already pointed to the answer. The invitation went to WIN, the party of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, and not to the Opposition as a whole. They say the PPP should stop claiming it invited “the Opposition” when it invited one party in it.
APNU sources are adamant on the other point. The party understands diplomacy and protocol, and its MPs would have conducted themselves appropriately had anyone invited them. A party that sat in government for five years does not need a lesson in how to receive foreign guests.
The distinction between one party and the whole Opposition is the story. The Parliamentary Opposition is three political parties. Inviting one and then announcing that “the Opposition” was invited is not a slip. It builds a record that says the door was open, and it leaves APNU wearing a charge it never had the chance to answer.
A Senior Counsel and Minister of Legal Affairs knows what a loose statement does when it comes from public office. It travels faster than the correction. Precision would have cost him one clause, and he chose not to spend it.
This is a pattern. On October 12 he said the parliamentary opposition is “not an effective and competent opposition.” Days later he accused it of bringing “a level of depravity, a level of vulgarity, a level of vitriol, a level of abuse.” Forward Guyana’s Amanza Walton-Desir answered that he had shown a “startling lack of self-awareness.” Now the Opposition is discourteous as well.
His own post raises the bigger question. He says he met the Bundestag “as part of a delegation from the Parliament of Guyana,” and that the meeting explored cooperation “between the Parliaments of the two countries.” A meeting between two Parliaments should include the whole of Guyana’s Parliament. Who decided that APNU would not be in the room? Who then told the public that the Opposition could not be bothered to wait?
Precedent does not favour a selective delegation. When the Speaker led Guyana’s delegation to Beijing in August 2024, the Parliament’s own release listed the Opposition Chief Whip, Christopher Jones, among its members. That is how a Parliament presents itself abroad.
Mr. Mahipaul’s prescription is the right one. Mr. Nandlall should stop casting aspersions and advocate for the inclusive representation of all political parties in parliamentary engagements and delegations, local and international. Such engagements should reflect the diversity of our Parliament, not merely selected representatives.
Mr. Nandlall demands a competent opposition. Alternately, he could begin by being an accurate Attorney General. Name the MPs. Show the invitations. Or withdraw the line.
Leave a Reply