The government’s recent abrupt reversal on the proposed Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2026 has exposed not only divisions within its own ranks but also deeper concerns about transparency, consultation and the formulation of public policy.
At the centre of the controversy is the proposed establishment of a national sex offenders registry. When the Bill was tabled in the National Assembly by Human Services and Social Security Minister Dr Vindhya Persaud, the registry envisaged was a closed one, accessible only under specified circumstances. The minister vigorously defended this approach, arguing that it was consistent with international practice and represented a major step forward in protecting vulnerable persons.
Yet within days, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo announced that President Irfaan Ali had instructed that the Bill be sent to a parliamentary select committee because the government now favoured an open, public registry. Shortly afterwards, Minister Persaud herself declared on Facebook that she, the President and the Cabinet all supported a public register.
This sequence of events raises more questions than it answers.
If the President, the Cabinet and the subject minister all believed that a public registry was the preferred option, why was a Bill containing provisions for a closed registry laid before the National Assembly in the first place? Why was this preference not reflected during Cabinet deliberations (was there any?) or before the Bill was tabled? And if the government had already arrived at a different policy position, why was the minister publicly defending the legislation only a day before the dramatic change in direction?
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira has sought to defend the process by emphasising the extensive consultations that took place over a year. There is no reason to doubt that a considerable number of organisations and agencies participated. The list released by the government is lengthy and includes ministries, professional bodies, civil society groups and technical experts.
However, the issue is not whether consultations occurred. The issue is what weight the government intended to attach to those consultations.
The administration has not developed a reputation for allowing public consultations to determine policy outcomes. On several contentious matters in recent years, consultations have appeared more procedural than substantive. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable for citizens to ask why, in this instance, the government suddenly decided that the recommendations emerging from consultations should stand.
According to Ms. Teixeira, stakeholders overwhelmingly supported a closed registry with provisions for applications to obtain information on offenders. If the government now believes that a public registry is necessary, then it owes the public a clear explanation as to what changed and when.
This question is particularly important because the consultations themselves did not produce unanimity. Groups that participated in the process, including activists and organizations with long experience working on issues of sexual violence, recommended further discussion on the design and implementation of the registry and even suggested consideration of both a restricted and public registry model, similar to that in Trinidad and Tobago.
Moreover, the concerns raised by veteran rights activist Karen de Souza deserve serious consideration. She has rightly pointed to the profound lack of public trust in institutions charged with collecting and managing sensitive data. Whether the registry is public or closed, its effectiveness depends on the state’s ability to maintain accurate records, protect against misuse and administer the system fairly and competently.
These are not trivial concerns. A public registry could expose offenders to vigilante action and potentially complicate rehabilitation efforts. A closed registry, meanwhile, places significant power in the hands of institutions that have themselves struggled to command public confidence.
There are also broader concerns about the proposed amendments. Ms. De Souza’s observation that key preventive provisions already contained in the Sexual Offences Act remain largely unimplemented should be deeply troubling. More than fifteen years after the principal legislation was enacted, the inter-agency mechanisms and national plans envisaged by the law have not been meaningfully realised.
The focus on the registry risks overshadowing this larger failure.
Sexual violence remains a grave and persistent problem in Guyana. The country unquestionably requires stronger systems to monitor offenders and protect victims. But effective legislation requires more than good intentions and dramatic announcements. It demands clarity of purpose, institutional capacity and genuine public engagement.
The decision to send the Bill to a select committee is therefore welcome. Parliament should seize this opportunity to conduct the broad and transparent examination that such significant legislation deserves.
But the government must also explain how it arrived at this point. Public confidence in the legislative process depends not only on consultation but also on consistency and honesty. On the evidence so far, the handling of this Bill has produced confusion where there should have been clarity and raised doubts where there should have been confidence.
The public deserves answers before Parliament proceeds any further with a Bill of such magnitude.
Discussion