Nigel Hughes Ideal Man to Lead Coalition Against PPP

Submitted by Rickford Burke

The Guyanese nation now ponders the election of a new leader and government to chart a new course for our country.

Our nation needs a rebirth. It has been perennially plagued by racial strife; social and economic stagnation; morally and intellectually bankrupt governance; abject criminality; unparalleled PPP corruption and political decay.

Now is the time to unshackle our country from the morass engendered by the discredited PPP leadership.

To accomplish this, we need a new leader with a bold new vision to transform our society and inspire the current generation of young Guyanese, who long for advancement, prosperity and a better way of life. We need a new leader who can unleash our developmental potential and propel the nation toward the path of modernity.

Such a leader must be endowed with youth; vibrancy; brilliance; pragmatism; gumption; a vision for rapid development and a political philosophy that is resonant. We need a leader with the ability to understand and articulate the issues affecting the nation; forge harmony among people of all races and ethnicities; connect with the people in extraordinary ways. Someone who possesses the incomparable capability to lead and get things done; a leader who can earn the respect, trust and admiration of the nation.

I believe that Attorney at Law Nigel Hughes possesses all of these qualities. He as has proven himself to be a politician with the potential to grow, develop and mature into an extraordinary political leader, who can accomplish great things for our country and people.

As the joint opposition contemplates the formation of a grand coalition to challenge the PPP at the May 11, 2015 general election, I strongly urge the formation of such a coalition and enormous “peoples’ movement,” and that Nigel be considered as the presidential candidate.

Nigel has the intellect, passion, character, integrity, gravitas and expertise to be President. He is a unifying force who can emerge as a transformational leader.

The fact that I, a traditional PNCR or APNU supporter, can with confidence and assiduousness make such an endorsement of Nigel – who is from a different political party, is a clear indication that Nigel has cross-political appeal.

He possesses the unique ability to bridge the partisan divide. He’s qualified to lead the grand coalition many of us envision, comprising the Parliamentary opposition as well as religious, civil society, trade unions, business and community leaders.

There is no question that he’s the best person for this task. He will be a great leader! This would be best for Guyana.

I therefore urge the respective stakeholders, including Nigel, to give this proposition serious thought and analysis.

7 thoughts on “Nigel Hughes Ideal Man to Lead Coalition Against PPP

  1. I concur.After following the political happenings in Guyana,I will support such a proposition.
    David Granger appears to be aloof,Raphael Trotman has personal issues to take off,Moses Nagamooto seems bitter and has personal vendettas against certain members of the PPP and Khemrag Ramjattan seems disinterest.
    Every effort must be done to remove the despicable PPP administration from office.
    Only in ‘failed’ societies such as Guyana would you have a sitting Attorney General being caught on tape cursing,threatening and abusing journalists as well as other members of the public, yet he still the Attorney General.Only in a ‘failed state’ such as Guyana.
    Minister of National Security Clement Rohee a total idiot and nincompoop has his US visa revoked because of nefarious activities under his watch,yet that idiot is still a minister.Only in ‘failed’Guyana.

    • Let us watch St. Kitts closely. Why bother anyway, Bajans appear to be happy navel gazing. What an educated lot we are.

  2. @ Negroman

    You said ” Only in ‘failed’ societies such as Guyana would you have a sitting Attorney General being caught on tape cursing,threatening and abusing journalists…”

    Ahem, excuse me.

    Banner, wunna ent alone.

    We have we scunts heah too banner, we have Michael Carrington aided and abetted by we Prime Minister Fumble Sleeping Giant Stuart.

    We at least you have an alternative candidate in Nigel Hughes de only alternatives we got is ……

    WAIT banner, is who we got doah??

    I got to go now but when I come home back, since my guts dont allow me to do the navel gazing (I like dat one David) I going look to fabricate a Bajan name fuh you.

    • Jagdeo not bound by term limit, petitioner argues

      -says voters’ rights being restricted


      Jagdeo not bound by term limit, petitioner argues

      -says voters’ rights being restricted



      The challenge to the legality of the presidential term limit claims that barring two-term presidents like Bharrat Jagdeo from holding office again restricts the voters’ choice of candidates and such a restriction could only be effected through a referendum.

      Cedrick Richardson, who initiated the challenge, claims in his supporting affidavit that he has been advised by his attorney that Jagdeo is not legally prohibited from being a candidate for presidential elections by Act No. 17 of 2001, which added two clauses to the 1980 constitution to allow for re-election only once.

      This court action comes just three months before Guyanese are expected to head to the polls,raising questions about its timing and the motives of Richardson, who identifies himself in court documents as a 50-year-old West Ruimveldt resident. He was listed as a driver at the time of the last elections.

      Stabroek News was unable to make contact with Richardson but understands that he is within the employ of the lawyers who filed the High Court writ on Monday, attorneys Shaun Allicock, Oneidge Walrond-Allicock, Emily Dodson and Coleen Sparman.

      Asked about the genesis of his client’s action on Monday, Allicock had told Stabroek News that Richardson is a Guyanese and one who exercises his voting rights and who feels that his constitutional rights have been affected by the amendments.

      At the moment, the matter is being reviewed by acting Chief Justice Ian Chang and he is expected to set a date for a hearing shortly.

      Efforts to contact Jagdeo yesterday for comment were futile.

      Jagdeo, who was elected in 2006 and 2011, is not eligible to run for another term due to the alteration of Article 90 of the constitution with the addition of clause (2), which states, “A person elected as President after the year 2000 is eligible for re-election only once,” and clause (3), which states, “A person who acceded to the Presidency after the year 2000 and served therein on a single occasion for not less than such period as may be determined by the National Assembly is eligible for elections as President only once.”

      In the summons, Richardson claims that Act No. 17 of 2001, which was passed by a two-thirds majority of all elected members of the National Assembly, “unconstitutionally curtails and restricts his sovereign and democratic rights and freedom” as a qualified elector “to elect the person of former President Bharrat Jagdeo” as Executive President.

      Richardson is questioning whether the Act speaks to any reason for the non-compliance with Article 164 (2) (b); whether it has the consequence of restricting and curtailing the democratic rights and freedom of the electorate by purporting to eliminate from the executive presidential candidate a person who has been re-elected as executive president; whether it required for its legal validity the holding of a referendum of the people; and whether it diminishes and reduces the level of democracy enjoyed by the electorate prior to the purported alteration and therefore required the holding of a referendum for such alteration.

      In his affidavit in support of the summons, Richardson said that he has voted in every elections since 1993. He said that he has been advised and believes that Act. No. 17 of 2001 is unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect since “it was not passed following the holding of a referendum even though it purports to take away the democratic right and freedom of the electorate to elect as president a person who had been re-elected once.”

      Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Speaker Raphael Trotman are listed as defendants in the originating summons.

The blogmaster dares you to join the discussion.