IN a recent press conference, Nigel Hughes, the leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), made a striking declaration regarding the party’s actions during the contentious aftermath of Guyana’s 2020 elections.

His assertion that the AFC has “nothing to apologise for” raises critical questions about accountability and the integrity of political conduct in Guyana.
This stance not only reflects a troubling detachment from reality but also underscores a broader issue of political responsibility in a democratic society.
The AFC’s recent defiance can be traced back to its controversial manoeuvres during and after the 2020 elections.

Notably, Khemraj Ramjattan, then party leader, was vocal in his attempts to discredit the electoral process. His claims that the opposition at that time, the PPP/C, engaged in electoral “mischief” and his dismissal of international observers’ reports were not merely rhetorical flourishes; they were indicative of a concerted effort to undermine the democratic process.
Ramjattan insisted that definitive judgments about the elections should come from Keith Lowenfield, the Chief Election Officer who is facing charges for electoral fraud.
Moreover, Ramjattan’s accusations against the PPP/C and GECOM Chairperson Claudette Singh for their legal challenges against alleged electoral irregularities further illustrate the AFC’s unwillingness to accept any responsibility for its role in the electoral crisis. Such actions reflect a pattern of evasion rather than accountability.

Hughes’ challenge to reporters to specify what actions warranted an apology is emblematic of a broader issue within political discourse: the refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing.
The AFC’s tactics during the elections—ranging from unfounded allegations of foreign interference to attempts at delaying compliance with constitutional mandates—demonstrate a clear disregard for democratic norms. The party’s leaders have consistently deflected blame while perpetuating narratives that serve their political interests.

For instance, Cathy Hughes’ outlandish claims about Russian interference in a paper-based electoral system not only invited mockery, but also highlighted a desperate attempt to shift focus away from their own failings. This issue has become even more embarrassing because of contradictory statements by Ramjattan that he deported the Russians because they spoke to Jagdeo.
The subsequent embarrassment faced by the AFC over these allegations should serve as a cautionary tale about the consequences of spreading misinformation.

The observations made by international election observer missions are crucial in understanding the legitimacy of any electoral process. The CARICOM high-level team explicitly stated that many objections raised by the APNU+AFC coalition were irrelevant and served primarily as a “fishing expedition” rather than legitimate concerns. This characterisation underscores the AFC’s strategy: to create confusion and doubt about an election that was widely recognised as free and fair.

In view of these facts, Hughes’ insistence on having nothing to apologise for seems not only arrogant, but fundamentally disconnected from the reality faced by many Guyanese citizens who witnessed attempts to subvert their democratic rights.

As political leaders, it is imperative that Hughes and his colleagues engage in genuine reflection on their actions during one of Guyana’s most critical electoral periods. The refusal to apologise or acknowledge past actions not only undermines public trust but also sets a dangerous precedent in the realm of politics.
The AFC must recognise that accountability is not merely an obligation, but is also a cornerstone of democratic integrity.