Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

Sovereignty or sanctity of contract: It’s a voters’ choice

Every Man, Woman and Child must become oil minded – Column 168

Introduction

Petroleum and gas and supporting services make up 94% of the Mining and Quarrying sector which in turn makes up 70% of Guyana’s economy. Since 2021, it has been primarily responsible for the spectacular growth that has earned Guyana the distinction of fastest growing economy in the world. Money from the oil fund (NRF) makes up exactly 50% of current revenues in 2025. It is acknowledged as the product of the most lopsided oil contract for the past several decades, measured by what the Government gets out of the sector compared with the blessings to the oil companies. All this while the private sector has a minimum wage of $60,000 per month, businesses complain about workers and foreign exchange and the poor complain about the cost of living.  

Naturally, the Government wants to divert attention from its management of the sector and has pushed the opposition into arguing how the miniature cake is to be shared rather than how to fight for a bigger cake. It is an area on which the ruling party ought to be most vulnerable although some might argue that corruption is mightily serious.

Come Monday September 1, as voters go to the polls, they may not be aware that the sector offers the greatest opportunity to truly transform Guyana. This is perhaps the last best chance to have some say on whether Guyana should re-assert its sovereignty rights and power to exercise control over our vast petroleum resources. That choice is not limited to oil but to the direction of the nation. If left unchallenged, the PPP’s model of petroleum sector administration will be no better than its administration of GuySuCo. Undisturbed, this model will define the country’s future for decades. And that is why the coming elections matter so deeply.

Trusting Ali and Jagdeo

We all recall how much we trusted Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo when they told us five years ago that they would review and renegotiate the 2016 Agreement as soon as they got back into power. The echo of their sounds had hardly receded before being replaced by the mantra “sanctity of contract”, national interest replaced by Exxon’s interest. 

The response to every criticism, suggestion or recommendation is met with the same response, as though repetition could transform political deception into some constitutional principle. The PPP try to sell its 2021 Petroleum Activities Act as an antidote, without ever mentioning that the 2021 Act does not apply to the 2016 Agreement.

Therefore, the iniquities remain, even if the electorate is led to believe the problem has been solved. With every passing day, every election cycle, every success at the polls or in the courts, the chance of change becomes less. Every act of theirs, and of the Ministry of Natural Resources, is designed to favour Exxon and its partners while the people go after the crumbs. 

The cost of the about turn

It is easier to see investments in roads, bridges, schools and physical, visible infrastructure than it is to see poverty and hardships. Only those who feel it know it. We need to do so much more than have large swathes of our population lament their state of poverty. A working-class government that truly cares would see it as a primary duty to say that we will not accept 14% for our depletable resources. It is the moral equivalent of the theft of our sovereignty. And the PPP/C is a willing accomplice. 

Its capitulation to Exxon manifests in concrete actions that undermine Guyana’s sovereignty: allowing Exxon to build its Ogle headquarters without the required Presidential license for foreign land acquisition, issuing production licenses without any conditions, and defending an overly broad stability clause that freezes Guyana’s laws until 2056 rather than utilising the agreement’s own renegotiation provisions, as the previous Coalition government successfully did with royalty rates. Most troubling is the government’s refusal to establish an independent Petroleum Commission, leaving critical oversight in the hands of the same politicians who have betrayed our trust.  

The last, best chance

The truth is simple: once these elections are done, the prospects for revisiting the 2016 Agreement will vanish. With each year, the unfairness will harden, and the legal and financial entanglements will grow more difficult to unwind.

That is why these elections must be understood as the last, best chance for Guyanese to demand action. A new mandate is the only leverage strong enough to force a government to put sovereignty above sanctity – and to borrow from Sir Jock Campbell- the people before Exxon’s profits.

Conclusion

This election is not an ordinary contest of parties and personalities. It is a referendum on the PPP’s management of the sector. This column argues that more than even oil, but because of it, sovereignty itself is on the ballot.

Posted on

Costs in this case risk closing doors of constitutional and administrative justice to all but the wealthy

Dear Editor,

Last Friday’s decision of the Chief Justice (ag.) in a case brought by Krystal Hadassah Fisher, a poor, ordinary woman voter from the hinterland, causes me serious concerns. That it may have been initiated and advanced by Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), one of the smaller parties contesting tomorrow’s elections, is irrelevant. The court’s language about “false assertion” and its description of the argument as a “grossly disingenuous” makes me understand why some legal personalities in Guyana who have participated in litigation in more civil jurisdictions, are unwilling to appear in our courts.

The applicant has already given notice of appeal, and the matter will be litigated further. But the issue that most troubles me is the cost of two million dollars which the court ordered the woman to pay, a sum perhaps many times her net worth. Worse, she has been given less than two weeks to produce the money.

Even if the payment will be borne by FGM, the decision does more than dispose of a case: it risks closing the doors of constitutional and administrative justice to all but the wealthy. It also flies in the face of the ruling by our highest court in Ramon Gaskin v Minister of Natural Resources [2024 CCJ 14 (AJ) GY], where the CCJ expressly refused to award costs against Gaskin even though he had lost at every stage of the case. The court explained that citizens who engage in public interest litigation perform a public service. That decision was notable in that the issue of cost was addressed by three of the five judges who presided over the matter.

My other concern is the approach by the local court in addressing the Krystal Fisher action. While I have not had the benefit of a reading of the decision, its approach appears at odds with the constitutional philosophy articulated in Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319, which Caribbean courts and the CCJ have consistently treated with deference. That case established that constitutions are sui generis instruments requiring generous, purposive interpretation to give life to citizens’ rights. In the Krystal Fisher case, the decision reflected a narrow, literalist approach that puts technical form over democratic substance.

Some in our society may prefer the fossilisation of the Burnham Constitution with its ambiguities, flaws, and dictatorial features. By punishing litigants who challenge those ambiguities, the Court unwittingly contributes to that fossilisation. Worse, the court seems unwilling to acknowledge the egregious and piecemeal drafting of our electoral laws. The principle of access to justice requires that no citizen should be penalised for ambiguities Parliament has failed to cure; the courts should be the first to highlight such deficiencies, not punish those who expose them.

Worryingly, this is not an isolated development. Only recently, a different court awarded costs of one million dollars against two citizens – including one politician – who had approached the court in good faith. The cumulative effect is unmistakable: a trend of punitive costs orders that discourage litigation brought by citizens. This risks making constitutional justice a privilege for the solvent few whose interest is generally limited to self-interest.

Access to justice is the lifeblood of democracy; to drain it with punitive costs is to suffocate it and rob it of its vibrancy, and of the expansion of opportunities and further development of society. Both of which are badly needed in Guyana.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

The absence of progress by the Constitutional Reform Commission is baffling given the human and financial resources at its disposal

Dear Editor,

Your article “Constitutional Reform Commission suspends work until after elections” (S/N Sept. 9, 2025) should trouble every Guyanese. I am particularly disappointed because I saluted the appointment of former Chancellor Carl Singh to lead the process, despite the politicisation of the membership of the Commission with party persons and handpicked members of civil society. Probably the most inappropriate was then attorney-at-law Dr. Kim Kyte as the representative of women and Mr. Adrian Anamayah, as farmers’ representative.

The twenty-one-member Commission is supported by a full Secretariat and a big fat budget. Among the members are some of the country’s most respected legal minds – including Justice Singh, the Head of the Bar Association, the Attorney-General, Senior Counsel, prominent attorneys-at-law and hand-picked representatives of civil society. With such talent and authority, the people of Guyana are entitled to expect diligence and progress.

Instead, more than a year after its establishment, the Commission has little to show beyond reported orientation sessions and internal familiarisation exercises. To compound the situation, the members have decided to “suspend work until after the General and Regional Elections.” As if that is not absurd enough, the Commission appears to be in breach of article 19 A of the Constitution and the Constitution Reform Commission Act, No. 16 of 2022 which require the Commission to make periodic reports to the National Assembly.

The collective failure of the Commission is doubly shameful. The 1999 Commission was sworn in on January 22, 1999, and by July 17 of that year it delivered its 300-page report to the National Assembly having received and analysed scores of submissions – some running to several pages – consulted widely, engaged local and foreign experts.

That body, operating under greater constraints, delivered results. Today, many of its recommendations remain unfinished business. Therefore, this Commission was not required to begin from zero, or as they say, reinvent the wheel. Unlike the 1999 Commission, the current Commission, had a body of material and unfinished business on which it could build.

Worse, Guyanese are reminded that both major parties – which have nine direct representatives and several indirect representatives – promised constitutional reform in their manifestos of 2015, repeated the pledge in 2020, and again in 2025. To now preside over this spectacle of delay and inertia is to insult the intelligence of the people.

Editor, this Commission is acting like our politicians – treating constitutional reform as something that is optional. In fact, constitutional reform aims to strengthen democracy, protect rights, improve government effectiveness, and enhance legitimacy by updating outdated institutions.

As a citizen, I take the liberty to call on the Chairperson, as an immediate act, to direct the Secretariat to prepare the draft of its first periodic report to the National Assembly, in accordance with article 119 A of the Constitution. That report should also include its schedule of national consultations and a clear timetable for the delivery of its terms of reference in the form of a final report to the National Assembly no later than twelve months hence.

The ineptitude that has characterised the past ten years in almost every constitutional body but one, every parliamentary body, and every statutory body, must end. Chairperson Singh must make himself available to the media, report to the National Assembly and ensure that his Commission not only does not waste taxpayers’ money but deliver on this critical function which it undertook.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

GECOM should address this matter of domicile in relation to Commonwealth citizens

Dear Editor,

There has been much debate – and concern – about the conditions which Commonwealth citizens must meet to qualify to vote in Guyana’s elections. This issue is addressed in Article 59 of the Constitution of Guyana which states:

“Subject to the provisions of article 159 (being registered as an elector), every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana.” Emphasis added.

Article 159 (3) goes on to provide in a roundabout, double negative way that a person shall not be so qualified unless he or she is a non-citizen Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year before the qualifying date. While 159 (3) not only appears to offer some clarification – and is by international standards quite liberal – the requirement of domicile qualifies the one-year residency which is not further defined. It does not say that residency means continuous, or if not continuous, for one year during the past X or Y years.

Unlike domicile, residency is often a practical rather than a strictly legal matter. Domicile on the other hand, is a very strict concept. A person is born with a domicile which is called his domicile of origin. That status can be changed to another domicile, known as a domicile of choice, but the conditions are onerous, as ruled in a UK tax case. In that case, a man born in Halifax, Canada in 1910 who served in the RAF from 1932 to 1959 married an English woman in 1946 and lived in England for decades but always intended to return to Canada if his wife died before him.

The tax authorities claimed that he had acquired a domicile of choice in England where he intended to reside indefinitely, if not perpetually. And that his intention to return to Canada if his wife died was too uncertain to negative the acquisition of domicile of choice. The Chancery Division of the High Court agreed with the tax authorities, but its decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which held that since the taxpayer intended to return to Canada if he survived his wife, he had not acquired an English domicile.

If we apply that principle to the Bajan who is a permanent employee with CARICOM in Guyana but who intends eventually to leave Guyana, that person would be resident in Guyana during that time but not domiciled and resident in Guyana. The same would be true of the Trinidadian or Indian or Bangladeshi construction or oil sector worker.

Even if such a person was mistakenly registered as a voter, the Constitution states that that person is not eligible to vote in our elections. If GECOM had improperly registered that person, it must take corrective action and ensure that the person does note vote. I cannot see how to allow an unqualified person to vote would be the lesser of two evils.

GECOM should address this matter to remove any lingering concerns citizens and the parties might have.    

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

2025 Manifestos – This time it is the PPP/C’s Record on the Line

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 167

Introduction

The electorate in 2020 punished APNU+AFC for the lopsided 2016 Petroleum Agreement, revealed to the public only long after it had been signed in June 2016. Civil society was relentless, and the Ali–Jagdeo ticket was brutal and emphatic. They pledged to review and renegotiate the Agreement. They would establish an independent Petroleum Commission. They promised better contract administration.

Five years later, the debate has come full circle. This column looks specifically at the oil and gas sections of the manifestos of the PPP/C, APNU, AFC, WIN, and the Forward Guyana Movement, now offered up to the public. The focus is on what each party promises, what has been delivered, and which proposals stand up to scrutiny.

PPP/C: Spin Versus Reality

The PPP/C takes a dual approach. A review, nay boast of its achievements and a promise of what is yet to come. So, it highlights its legislative action: a new 2021 Natural Resource Fund Act, the 2023 Petroleum Activities Act to replace the age-old Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, and a new model Production Sharing Agreement with less outrageous fiscal terms for future blocks. It boasts about US$3.1 billion in the NRF which is in fact overstated by the amount of taxes it has paid on behalf of the oil companies but which it refuses to disclose. Boasts about 1,000 local firms registered under the Local Content Act which it promised to revise since 2023 but did not. Then it conflates these with stalled progress on the Wales Gas-to-Energy project which is being done without a feasibility study or a disclosed cost.

Nowhere does the manifesto admit that none of these touch the 2016 deal that lies at the heart of the controversy. The government promised renegotiation in 2020 but never tried. Contract administration has been poor: no audit completed on time, the first audit mishandled, and relinquishment deadlines allowed to drift. The Petroleum Commission, once sold as a centrepiece of independent oversight, has been quietly abandoned.

Even the NRF reform was shallow. Transfers are set by a simplistic formula based on percentages of the fund’s balance, ensuring political control rather than professional management. What the PPP/C calls reform is, in truth, centralisation of power in the hands of politicians.

It faces a huge trust deficit to explain the reality that its government campaigned as a reformer but governed as a dormouse and apologist.

APNU: Renegotiation and Fiscal Rules

APNU overlooks its primary role in the 2016 Agreement and has been annoyingly ambivalent about the Agreement and the PPP/C’s management of the oil sector for five years.

If we can take it at its word, it will “get a better deal within two years.” It proposes an autonomous Petroleum Commission, professional advisory teams, fiscal rules to discipline savings and spending, and publication of all contracts.

This is right in principle. Guyana cannot rely on future agreements alone while the Stabroek PSA drains the treasury. Codified fiscal rules would add stability and protect future generations. The challenge, however, is feasibility. Exxon is unlikely to accept changes easily, and legal routes are narrow. APNU may risk overpromising, but it at least faces the reality of the 2016 deal and couples renegotiation with stronger institutions.

AFC: Oversight and Environment First

Ironically, the AFC, whose top leader Raphael Trotman signed the 2016 Agreement and whose current leader and presidential candidate is a key professional service provider to the oil companies, offers the most detailed timetable. Within 30 days it would initiate renegotiation; within 60 days establish a Petroleum Commission. It pledges to enforce ring-fencing, ban routine flaring and produced-water dumping, and require full liability insurance for spills. It also promises quarterly NRF reporting with civil society oversight.

The manifesto’s strength is its seriousness about oversight and environment. By focusing on insurance and liability, it addresses the gravest risk – that a spill could cripple the country. Its emphasis on transparency and civil society participation aligns with international best practice.

The weakness is ambition. Attempting renegotiation, regulatory reform, and NRF overhaul simultaneously may overwhelm capacity. Yet of all the manifestos, the AFC’s is the most technically robust and grounded in the mechanics of sound petroleum management.

These provisions bear the unmistakable hand of Dr. Vince Adams, arguably the most accomplished Guyanese petroleum environment specialist.  

WIN: Transparency and Renewables

While not the most technically sound or complete set of policy proposals, WIN relies on its appeal and offers a people-centred focus. It promises full publication of all extractive contracts, strict ring-fencing, and transparent monitoring of oil revenues. More strikingly, it proposes a bold national wind and solar programme to complement gas-to-shore, reduce tariffs by up to 70%, and end chronic blackouts.

WIN’s vision and its perceived authenticity seem to resonate with the ordinary voters. Households care as much about electricity bills and reliability as they do about royalty rates. Tying petroleum wealth to cheaper, cleaner power connects oil policy directly to daily life. The weakness is feasibility — financing and executing such an ambitious renewable rollout will be difficult. Still, WIN adds a valuable emphasis on sustainability and transparency.

Forward Guyana Movement: Linking Oil to Governance

The Forward Guyana Movement situates oil inside a broader governance reset: shared power, zero tolerance for corruption, audited NRF accounts, and movement toward a National Oil Company. It emphasises that without tackling corruption and exclusion, no resource management system will succeed.

This perspective is valid. Oil cannot be insulated from Guyana’s wider governance challenges. The weakness is that the manifesto offers fewer technical details compared with the AFC or WIN. But its central message – that petroleum governance is an offshoot of political governance – is important.

Conclusion: Rating the Promises

My assessment is that the AFC’s proposals come out tops, followed by the APNU, WIN and FGM with the PPP/C’s suffering from a betrayal of trust and a promise of more of the same.

 The electorate’s decision will determine whether Guyana continues with political control dressed up as reform, or whether it begins the hard work of building professional institutions and securing a fairer share of its oil wealth.