The Harpy

🇬🇾🛑Press Freedom & Media Access Denied in Guyana 🛑🇬🇾
Media Access Controversy at the National Assembly of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.

In January 2026, the Clerk of the National Assembly confirmed that only the state-owned broadcaster NCN will be present in the Chamber for the upcoming election of the Leader of the Opposition, on instruction from the Speaker. This decision has reignited concerns about equitable media access and press freedom in Guyana.

Independent media houses, represented by the Guyana Press Association, have formally requested clarification and greater access, pointing out that the seating and accreditation arrangements — particularly for budget debates and significant parliamentary actions — must be transparent and inclusive.

The announcement that came from the Clerk of the National Assembly of the Parliament of Guyana, that was confirmed on January 24, 2026, stated that:
“Only the state-owned National Communications Network (NCN) will be permitted inside the Chamber” for the election of the Leader of the Opposition at the direction of the Speaker of the National Assembly has raised public debate.

This official administrative directive sparked the outcry from opposition figures and press freedom advocates.
The official directive to restrict only NCN inside the Chamber is documented by the Clerk of the National Assembly is historically flawed.
✔ Historically, independent media have covered key opposition leadership transitions and parliamentary events, even if not always physically inside the Chamber.
✔ The Constitution of Guyana explicitly guarantees freedom of expression and by extension supports press access and reportage.
✔ International diplomats have publicly urged democratic practices, inclusive parliamentary procedures, and press freedom.

Guyana’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, specifically:

“Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression — that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference…” — Constitution of Guyana, Article 146(1).

This constitutional protection underpins the principle that media houses and journalists must be able to report on matters of public interest, including the functioning of Parliament and the election of leadership positions.

A Few Examples of Previous Opposition Coverage by Independent Media Practice Prior to 2026.

In past transitions of Opposition Leaders — such as Aubrey Norton’s appointment in 2022 and reporting on Joseph Harmon’s tenure — independent outlets like Guyana Times and Stabroek News served as key sources of information for the public.
These accounts were made available through widely read channels, demonstrating a working practice of media access to political developments beyond just the state broadcaster.

Although formal invitations into the parliamentary Chamber have sometimes been limited, independent media coverage of opposition leadership appointments and related events has been publicly accessible and widely reported in the past. Here are at least five examples:

 Aubrey Norton appointed Leader of the Opposition (2022) — Guyana Times reported on Norton officially taking office and speaking to media afterwards, describing the appointment and his remarks to journalists.

 Joseph Harmon as Leader of the Opposition (2020–22) — Coverage in various news outlets on Harmon’s election and actions as opposition leader was widely reported, enabling public and media scrutiny.

 Previous media reports on the MPs being sworn in on Nov 2025 was covered by Stabroek News as the parliamentary event and the Constitution was explanations in detail by the Clerk for readers.

 EU Observer Reports citing media access bias and state media advantage — Independent outlets Kaieteur News and Stabroek News were specifically noted for providing balanced election coverage.

These examples show that independent media have historically covered opposition leader appointments, parliamentary proceedings, and key political transitions — often in real time and with explanatory reporting.

Global Diplomatic Support for Press Freedom.

International envoys in Guyana have repeatedly emphasised democratic norms and media access:

U.S., British, Canadian and EU diplomats jointly encouraged timely convening of Parliament and election of the Opposition Leader. They noted that a functioning parliamentary process — with full participation and visibility — is critical for democratic governance.

Canadian High Commissioner Sébastien Sigouin stressed that “Parliament is the cornerstone of democracy”, underscoring the importance of transparent processes and broad media engagement.

U.S. diplomats in Guyana have supported the role of a functioning opposition and the importance of full parliamentary participation, implicitly reinforcing the need for open press coverage.

Importance of Press Freedom

Robust press access strengthens accountability, ensures public awareness of parliamentary procedures, and guards against the perception of bias. Since opposition leadership elections and parliamentary sittings are matters of national importance, allowing all accredited media access is consistent with both constitutional guarantees and democratic norms observed internationally.

Diplomatic Quotation Supporting Freedom of the Press.

Here are relevant statements by diplomatic representatives emphasizing media and democratic processes:

1. Canadian High Commissioner Sébastien Sigouin:
“Parliament is the cornerstone of democracy … engagement does not imply endorsement; it reflects a genuine commitment to dialogue and to institutions.”

2. Joint US/UK/Canada/EU statement:
On World Press Freedom Day, ambassadors including those from the U.S., UK, and Canada highlighted the importance of journalism and freedom of expression as central to democratic societies.

3. U.S. Embassy diplomatic remarks:
U.S. diplomatic comments in Guyana have affirmed that press and political voices should be able to explain and scrutinize public events, including parliamentary processes.

CNN International United Nations Human Rights European Union at the UN – New York U.S. Embassy Guyana UK in Guyana - British High Commission, Georgetown, High Commission of Canada to Guyana and Suriname Transparency International BBC Al Jazeera English

🛑🤦‍♀️BROKEN PROMISES AND FALSE HOPE🤦‍♀️🛑
“...The PPP/C has failed the Guyanese people and Guyana miserably and they deliberately create false hope with promise of gratification with the uneconomical, unmanaged, unconstitutional disbursement of Cash Grants...”

First 100 Days Delivery of Promises by Guyanese Presidents in Historical and Regional Context.

This report examines whether presidents of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana (Guyana) delivered major campaign promises within their first 100 days in office. It also provides a regional comparison with Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Suriname, Venezuela, and French Guiana.

Before we get into the details let’s first acknowledge that the 100th day for the PPP/C elected presidential candidate and current president of Guyana will be on December 15, 2025. By my counting that's September 7, 2025 as day one.

Guyanese are frustrated, impatient and feel betrayed by the promises of the PPP/C.
Guyanese have become sharply critical of the PPP/C and their tone speaks volumes as they yell out their frustration with disappointment publicly.

Base on the promises made by the PPP/C, Guyanese expected immediate, tangible fulfillment of campaign promises (pensions, grants, bonuses, etc.) within the first 100 days of office.
Since those promises have not materialised, it translates by interpretation to neglectful actions via the silence and distracting activities that interminably been the evidence of the PPP/C leadership and ultimately the president, Irfan Ali.

The embarrassment, failure and cronyism of the PPP/C are ever present as it is broadcasted publicly on all social media platforms.

The repeated use of “One Guyana” and the many "builds" that they proclaim as progress have only created an environment of segregation by financial capabilities, partisan delivery of resources and social benefits, which breads distrust and further confirms their lack of empathy, patriotism, service to the people and direct inaction to create a better life for all Guyanese.

The PPP/C has failed Guyanese and Guyana miserably and they deliberately create false hope with promise of gratification with the uneconomical, unmanaged, unconstitutional disbursement of Cash Grants.

Guyana: Presidential First-100-Days Performance

Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham (in power 1964–1985; executive President 1980–1985)
Burnham’s early governance focused on structural and state‑building reforms, not quick-turnaround campaign pledges. His first months lacked any documented 100‑day fulfilment program.

Hugh Desmond Hoyte (President 1985–1992)
Hoyte initiated rapid policy redirection through the Economic Recovery Programme shortly after taking office, but these large economic reforms unfolded over time rather than being completed within 100 days.

Cheddi B. Jagan (President 1992–1997)
Jagan used the “100 days” frame for public communication, emphasising the reversal of austerity and restoration of services. However, most major promises required budget cycles and were not completed within the first 100 days.

Bharrat Jagdeo (President 1999–2011)
Jagdeo’s early months focused on macroeconomic stabilisation, debt relief groundwork, and long-range planning. These reforms exceeded the 100‑day window and were not packaged as rapid-delivery pledges.

Donald Ramotar (President 2011–2015)
Press analysis at the time described Ramotar’s first 100 days as limited in major achievements, with no large-scale campaign promises fulfilled in that period.

David Arthur Granger (President 2015–2020)
The APNU+AFC coalition published a 100‑day plan in 2015. Performance assessments show mixed results—some actions initiated, many delayed or incomplete at the 100‑day checkpoint.

Mohamed Irfaan Ali (President — 1st. term - Dec 3, 2020; 2nd. term sworn in Sept 7, 2025)
President Ali’s administrations (2020– and 2025–) highlighted budgetary and institutional constraints. Some symbolic actions occurred early, but major fiscal promises generally required budget approval and administrative systems beyond 100 days.

Irfaan Ali’s second term as president 100th day is December 15, 2025. By my counting that's September 7, 2025 as day one.

The PPP/C has failed Guyanese and Guyana miserably and they deliberately create false hope with promise of gratification with the uneconomical, unmanaged, unconstitutional disbursement of Cash Grants.

Guyanese are frustrated, impatient and feel betrayed by the promises of the PPP/C.
The embarrassment, failure and cronyism of the PPP/C are ever present as it is broadcasted publicly on all social media platforms.

Here is the Regional Comparative Context

Barbados – Mia Mottley ((took office in 2018)
Mottley’s government is known for decisive early action, particularly strong communications and immediate institutional moves. Structural reforms, however, including the later transition to a republic, occurred beyond the first 100 days.

Trinidad & Tobago – Kamla Persad-Bissessar (took office in 2010)
Her administration published early priorities and highlighted initial successes within the first months. As in Guyana, large structural reforms were mixed and extended beyond the 100‑day window.

Jamaica – Andrew Holness (took office in 2011)
Holness administrations often announce 100‑day targets. Some administrative actions occur quickly but major socio-economic reforms take longer. Jamaica’s political culture commonly treats the 100‑day mark as a public accountability moment.

Suriname - Dési Bouterse (took office in 2010) & Dr. Jennifer Geerlings-Simons - (took office in 2025)
Suriname’s governments typically act quickly on cabinet restructuring and administrative directives. However, economic, anti-corruption, and constitutional reforms exceed the 100‑day threshold.

Venezuela – Nicolas Maduro (took office in 2013)
Maduro is a leader similar to Chávez which is an example of a leader who implemented dramatic early measures, including initiating a constitutional overhaul soon after taking office. Although sweeping, even these processes extended beyond 100 days, underscoring the limits of the 100‑day metric.

French Guiana - The President of this Assembly is Gabriel Serville (took office in 2021
French Guiana isn't an independent country with its own "President," but a French overseas department, so its leader is the French President (currently Emmanuel Macron) and locally, the President of its Assembly, with Gabriel Serville being the current Assembly President.
Being an overseas department of France, major policy moves depend on Paris. Thus, the 100‑day milestone is largely irrelevant to local governance autonomy.

Overall Conclusions
Across Guyana and the wider region, the “first 100 days” framework functions mostly as a political communications tool rather than an achievable timeline for substantial socio‑economic or constitutional reforms. Symbolic actions are common; budget-dependent promises rarely materialize fully within 100 days.

🛑Azruddin Mohamed does not Qualify as a 'Fugitive Offender'.🛑
Attorney General Anil Nandlall should be sued by Azruddin Mohamed for Libel and Defamation of Character for his misleading, incompetent and ignorant false statements

In recent public statements, Guyana's Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, referred to Member of Parliament and businessman Azruddin Mohamed as a "fugitive offender." However, a review of the Fugitive Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04, alongside publicly known facts, suggests that this description does not align with the statutory requirements or current circumstances.

Nandlall’s comments, made on his televised programme “Issues in the News,” centered on Mohamed’s indictment in the United States and the possibility of extradition. He warned of the constitutional implications of having a sitting MP facing extradition, asserting that Mohamed qualifies as a “fugitive offender.”

The Fugitive Offenders Act defines a fugitive offender as a person who has already been convicted or unlawfully remains at large after conviction, and is present outside the jurisdiction where the offense took place.
The Act states:
“‘fugitive offender’ means a person who is accused, or alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction, of an extraditable offence committed within the jurisdiction of Guyana or any Commonwealth country or foreign territory and is or is suspected to be in any country or territory, other than the country or territory in which the offence was committed or the person was convicted.”

The text makes clear:
Conviction is a prerequisite for the label. Mohamed has not been convicted in the United States or anywhere else. His case sits at the indictment stage and is pending extradition proceedings in Guyana.
Additionally, for fugitive status to apply, a person must be outside the jurisdiction of the offense or conviction. Instead, Mohamed was arrested in Guyana, released on bail, and continues to report to authorities.

Therefore, the conditions of conviction and being at large outside the relevant jurisdiction are both unmet.
Legal experts point out that while indictment and extradition requests raise serious questions, they do not automatically trigger the statute’s invocation. Mohamed’s attorneys have further argued that the charges listed may not qualify as “extraditable offences” under Guyanese law or the applicable extradition framework.

The legal and factual analysis thus indicates: as of today, Azruddin Mohamed does not meet the statutory criteria to be labeled a “fugitive offender.” Any claims suggesting otherwise appear to stretch—and potentially misapply—the wording of the Act.
The extradition process remains ongoing, but unless and until a conviction occurs and Mohamed becomes unlawfully at large, the description “fugitive offender” does not align with the law.