On June 10, 2026, a fierce public and political debate over Guyana’s proposed amendment to the Sexual Offences Act took a sharp turn after the country’s president and vice president publicly broke ranks with the initial draft of the bill that would have created a closed, non-public sex offender registry.
The controversy erupted after the amendment, which was tabled in the National Assembly on June 5, drew widespread criticism from the public and opposition groups, who questioned the lack of transparent public consultation and the decision to keep the registry off-limits to ordinary residents. In the hours before the government’s reversal, Human Services and Social Security Minister Dr. Vindhya Persaud defended the closed register provision in a 3:19 PM Facebook post, arguing that the bill had been drafted in line with results from public consultations that overwhelmingly favored a non-public system.
Just one minute before Dr. Persaud’s post went live, however, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo made a surprise announcement that upended the government’s initial position. Jagdeo revealed that President Irfaan Ali had issued a formal instruction to refer the pending Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to a bipartisan parliamentary Select Committee for expanded review and debate. Crucially, Jagdeo confirmed that both the president and the full Cabinet hold an unwavering position that any national sex offender registry must be open and accessible to the public. “I strongly share this view,” Jagdeo added, aligning himself firmly with the president’s stance.
Shortly after Jagdeo’s statement, Dr. Persaud backed the move to send the bill for further scrutiny, confirming that the bipartisan committee process would allow for broader input from parliamentarians. “My intention as subject Minister is to propose to have the Bill taken to Select Committee in Parliament to have it further discussed by members. It will benefit from more scrutiny and views at that Committee,” she said.
The announcement followed widespread pushback from members of the public who challenged Dr. Persaud’s claim that the closed register was backed by public consultation. Multiple commenters, including Jaya Manickchand, sister of sitting government minister Priya Manickchand, publicly questioned when and where these consultations were held, and how they were advertised to the general public. Dr. Persaud did not directly respond to these questions, but noted that the consultations had been led by consultant Dr. Kim Kyte through the Ministry of Legal Affairs. One public commenter called for the consultation process to be restarted with proper public advertising, with a full breakdown of stakeholder input shared publicly to justify any final decision on an open or closed register.
Beyond questions of process, the debate has exposed deep public divisions over the core policy question of whether a public or private registry better serves Guyana. Supporters of a closed register argue that an open system permanently stigmatizes offenders, blocking their path to rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Critics of open registries also note that the system harms people wrongfully accused of sexual offenses, destroying their personal and professional reputations before they can prove their innocence. They point to the case of young people who committed offenses as teenagers under the influence of drugs, alcohol or immaturity, arguing that if murderers can access rehabilitation and privacy after completing their sentences, sex offenders deserve the same second chance.
On the other side, advocates for an open register say a closed system offers no practical benefit to communities, who have a right to know if convicted sex offenders are living near them. “How would a closed register help anyone? Residents need to know who is living around them. It’s unfortunate that it took Guyana until 2026 to get this done and it’s of no use to anyone,” public commenter Harry Chowbey said.
The small non-parliamentary opposition Alliance For Change (AFC) has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the original proposed amendment, arguing that the bill is unfit for parliamentary consideration and represents an insult to survivors of sexual abuse. “It sends a troubling message that the concerns of victims are secondary to the interests of offenders,” the party said in a formal statement.
The AFC also raised a series of procedural and policy objections to the original bill, questioning how the government expects offenders to comply with mandatory reporting requirements to Indigenous village chiefs (known as Toshaos) in remote communities that lack regular police presence. The party also criticized provisions in the bill that allow certain offenders to be exempted from the registry entirely. While the AFC acknowledged that it is reasonable to seal records for minor offenses committed by minors in appropriate cases, the party questioned who would be given the power to grant exemptions for offenders claimed to be mentally disabled. “If a court has convicted an individual of a sexual offence, it suggests that any defence based on mental incapacity was either unsuccessful or insufficient to prevent a finding of guilt,” the party noted.