Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

Floor-crossing is now solely a career strategy

Dear Editor,

In a remarkable irony, former APNU+AFC MP Jermaine Figueira who assaulted his then colleague Charrandass Persaud for casting the vital vote in the no-confidence motion that brought down their Administration in 2018, has now endorsed Irfaan Ali for President in 2025. Unlike so many of his former PNCR colleagues, however, Figueira has not publicly identified with the PPP/C. Perhaps he recognises the irony that his work as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee to examine the trillions in expenditure by the Ali Administration was totally frustrated by the PPP/C members. That abdication of a constitutional duty will rankle as long as Persaud’s vote, and is even more difficult to justify. 

The PPP/C might have refined the practice of crossing the floor, but like so many things, it started under Forbes Burnham in the sixties. Back in those days, crossing the floor in Guyana was a matter of profound principle. It meant wrestling with conscience, confronting ideology, and severing bonds of personal and political loyalty nurtured over years of struggle. Whether in the era of black-and-white manifestos or red-fist revolutions, the decision to walk away from one’s political home came with risk, self-reflection, and often, sacrifice. It was not about contracts or comfort – it was about conviction. Not in the sense of criminal charges but ideological beliefs.

In those earlier decades, defection meant potential exile, permanent suspicion, and often public scorn. But at least it stood for something – right or wrong, naïve or brave, it was principle-based. Today, it has become sanctimonious, transactional, even theatrical. Floor-crossing is now a career strategy wrapped in hoped-for prosecutorial immunity and a place on the party list. The new breed does not defect – they transition, armed with lawyer-crafted letters, and exit statements rehearsed for the evening news. The floor, once sacred and stormy, has become a polished conveyor belt to promotion, protection, and perks.

In the first era – the Era of Conviction – crossing the floor was relatively rare but consequential. It was not undertaken for position or privilege, but out of deep ideological rift or personal betrayal.

Take Vincent Teekah, a brilliant academic and PPP stalwart and Ranji Chandisingh, a Marxist theorist of impeccable ideological pedigree. Others in that era included Harry Lall, Lallbachan Lallbahadur, Leonard Durant and Maud Branco. Balram Singh Rai was another principled leaver who formed his own party and is paying the price to this day. Another brilliant and principled defector from the PPP was Moses Bhagwan, once the leader of the PYO when that organisation served as a rite of passage to political party pinnacle.

We are now in a different era – that of Convenience. The contrasts could not be sharper. Gone are the manifestos, the ideological rifts, and the soul-searching. In their place: legal cover, constitutional gymnastics, and an entire cottage industry built around “aligning with development goals.” But let us not move too fast.

Remember Sam Hinds who was plucked from the GUARD movement and put on a trajectory of lifelong protection and security which he still so richly enjoys? That was the end of that noble movement. Then there is Manzoor Nadir, once the articulate voice of The United Force, who brought the party and his family over to the PPP and now serenades the government benches as Speaker of the House, his ideological compass rendered inoperable. That generation also included Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, a standout critic of what he referred to as Jagan’s extreme left-wing ideology.

Asgar Ally was part of Jagan’s 1992 government who later teamed up with Nanda Gopaul but later came back to the PPP. Then there was Odinga Lumumba from the PNC and GGG who earned valuable assets as a reward, and Joe Hamilton, a high priest of the House of Israel and enforcer of Rabbi Washington, who has been a minister of the Government with his sons in full employment.

More recent crossers in what started the Era of Opportunism include Asha Kissoon, whose name will be mentioned in the same breath as Persaud, James Bond (the recruiter) and Geeta Chandan-Edmond – no longer crossers of floors but dancers of the political ballroom, changing partners mid-song, always claiming it was the music that moved them.

Political crossovers were more universal than even this piece would suggest. The very birth of the AFC was a product of this phenomenon: Sheila Holder (WPA), Khemraj Ramjattan (PPP) and Raphael Trotman (PNCR). Now Sherod Duncan, Juretha Fernandes and Rickey Ramkissoon move from the AFC to PNCR. It is musical chairs, except that this is played out not at a party but by the parties.

 As we review the past sixty years or so, we are impressed how the wheel has turned full circle with PPP being the original losers, to the current wave in which it is the architect and principal beneficiary. But for longevity and for mastery of the craft, the trophy must go to Kit Nascimento, who has moved seamlessly and smoothly as an early firebrand, with the unique distinction of a place in the Wynn-Parry Report in the 1962 disturbances targeting the Jagan administration, to current presidential buddy as a communications czar – with a straight face.

In this chapter of our country’s post-Independence history, the names Charrandass Persaud, Asha Kissoon and Kit Nascimento stand tall.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

Business Commentary Part 30: When power imbalances undermine constitutional property rights

Business and Economic Commentary By Christopher Ram

Introduction

The recent letter to Stabroek News (SN 19th. July – Decision to have Attorney General lead the compulsory land acquisition process contradicts global best practices) raises legitimate concerns about the Attorney General leading the compulsory land acquisition process. The writer’s observations about power imbalances strike at the heart of what I have been advocating – that Guyana’s approach to compulsory land acquisition is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with constitutional principles and international best practices. I go further: the role played by the Attorney General blatantly violates the Compulsory Acquisition Act.

Let us remember that Article 142 of the Guyana Constitution guarantees “prompt payment of adequate compensation” for compulsorily acquired land. Yet the reality reveals a troubling disconnect between constitutional guarantee and the Act which dates back to 1914. The relevant provision restricts compensation to basic market value while excluding factors any reasonable person would consider relevant – including psychological trauma of forced displacement and loss of generational ties to ancestral lands. This creates what I have previously described as “a very imbalanced relationship between the Government and the citizen,” where the state wields “the coercive force of the law against the timidity of all but the well-heeled in society.”

When the Constitution promises adequacy, but the law delivers only market value minus most market factors, we have a system designed to shortchange citizens. Market value (MV) itself contradicts compulsory acquisition since MV is defined as the price agreed by a willing buyer and a willing seller. But the law is even worse. It has so many exclusions as to strip the landowner of his or her rights. In other words, not only is market value inappropriate, it is further denuded of the flawed amount offered by market value. My preference would be for a replacement value, or an expansion of section 19 to the Act which gives the Court latitude in increasing the amount of the market value. Sadly, it has not been my experience that the Government is too comfortable with this addition. 

The Attorney General’s role

The AG is, by definition, the government’s chief legal advocate. The practice in all these compulsory acquisitions is that the Chief Valuation Officer and the Attorney General play lead roles. I am not in the least bit certain that the roles they play in practice are legal, let alone proper.

The Act sets out detailed procedures that the State must follow when acquiring private property compulsorily, beginning when the Minister declares a project “public work” under section 3, authorises land examination under sections 4 and 5, and receives a survey report and plan under section 6, after which the Minister may either negotiate a purchase with the landowner or compulsorily acquire the land by making a declaration under section 6 that automatically vests the property in the State one month later subject to compensation (s.7), requiring the Minister to serve notice on the proprietor (s.8) and file certified copies in the Deeds Registry (s.9), before the Attorney General must apply to the Court under section 13 for compensation assessment, with the Court directing valuation and determination of appropriate compensation under sections 13-16. It is unclear whether these steps are followed and what non-compliance means to property owners.

Mr. Barrington, as Chief Valuation Officer, has held no statutory authority under the Act since the post-1990 period, and his valuation disclosed a single inapplicable comparator, raising serious concerns about the soundness of the evidence he would have tendered within the land acquisition process on behalf of the state.

The practice is different

The AG plays a lead role in meeting with and negotiating with landowners, ably supported by the Chief Valuation Officer who is promoted as an authority. This is not only wrong. It is unfair. Asking affected landowners to negotiate with the person whose job is to advance the government’s legal interests creates an inherent conflict that no amount of good intentions can resolve. International best practice emphasises independent facilitation precisely to avoid such conflicts. When communities feel they are negotiating with an adversary rather than participating in a fair process, the entire legitimacy of the project comes under threat.

No wonder then the several reports of property owners being presented with offers significantly below reasonable market rates, with little opportunity for meaningful appeal. The psychological pressure created by the government’s legal authority creates a system where “consultation” becomes a euphemism, at best for managed consent extraction, and at worst, being knowingly swindled by the State.

The deafening political silence

At the national, collective level, the most troubling feature is the complete absence of political discourse, let alone leadership on this issue. Despite the unprecedented spate of compulsory acquisitions that has accompanied Guyana’s oil trajectory – from gas-to-shore infrastructure to new highways and energy projects – not a single political party or prominent politician has paid meaningful attention to how citizens have been systematically cheated of their property.

The PPP government implements these unfair acquisitions. The PNC opposition remains silent about the constitutional violations. Third parties focus on trivia. The result is that ordinary Guyanese facing compulsory acquisition find themselves entirely alone, confronting the full power of the state with antiquated legal protections designed to favour colonial authorities.

The only and limited improvement to the 110 years old Act came in 1990 when then President Desmond Hoyte introduced a new version of section 19 which empowered the Courts to use its discretion to enhance the so-called “market value” to give the property owner “prompt payment of adequate compensation”.

The political dimension

And now, as we approach another election cycle, these same political parties that have ignored citizens’ property rights want our votes. They will speak eloquently about development and progress, but not about the families whose sacrifice made that development possible. Political parties that think they can systematically violate property rights and then count on electoral amnesia are making a dangerous miscalculation.

One of the tragedies of Guyana is that as voters do not react to having suffered from property under-valuations. Our voters can divorce their personal challenges from their political choices.

The way forward

Meaningful reform requires compensation that reflects the constitutional standard of adequacy, including a compulsory acquisition premium – no less than 25% above market value—to account for the forced nature of the transaction. The process must be genuinely independent, removing the Attorney General from stakeholder engagement and replacing government-dominated valuation with independent assessment panels.

The letter writer’s call for independent, participatory consultation processes reflects democratic wisdom. Our constitution promises adequate compensation for compulsory acquisition.

Posted on

A Response to ExxonMobil’s Letter: Embracing Fact-Based Engagement

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – Mr. John Colling’s commitment to “transparency and open, fact-based discussions” regarding ExxonMobil’s operations in Guyana is a welcome breath of fresh air. His July 2 letter provides an excellent opportunity to address fundamental questions about the 2024 financial statements of the Stabroek Block partners and several unresolved historical issues. He boldly asserts that ExxonMobil’s financial statements comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which unlike US GAAP, is based on the substance over form principle.

Guyana tourism package

IFRS 15 requires disaggregation of revenue into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors. Why is there no breakdown showing what portion of reported revenue represents taxes paid by the Government, sales from 2024 Profit Oil, and prior year cost recovery? How can stakeholders assess true operational performance when the composition of revenue is deliberately obfuscated?

Even if cost oil was sold to customers, the proceeds represent recovery of past investments, not compensation for current-year services. The economic substance is reimbursement, not revenue generation. When 65% of reported “revenue” is actually cost recovery from prior years, this fundamentally misleads users about operational performance.

Basic accounting principles require expenditures with future economic benefits to be recognised as assets. The Petroleum Agreement creates contractual rights to cost recovery – guaranteed rights backed by legal force. Why do the 2024 financial statements fail to recognise these guaranteed recoverable costs as assets? This selective application – treating guaranteed recoveries as uncertain while booking deferred tax liabilities that Guyana pays – violates basic IFRS principles and accounting integrity.

Guyana tourism package

The 2024 statements show significant deferred tax liabilities that will never be paid since Guyana covers these through cost recovery mechanisms. Would Mr. Colling disclose to Guyanese which government agency issued the tax certificates under Article 15.4 of the 2016 Agreement and the total value of those certificates in 2024? The failure to explain that Guyana effectively subsidizes the companies’ tax burden while they book these as concrete liabilities represents a fundamental failure of disclosure.

What is the exact value of unrecovered costs carried forward as of December 31, 2024? As the operator, how soon does ExxonMobil expect to reach full cost recovery? These are material facts that stakeholders need to assess the duration and scale of cost recovery impacts on Guyana’s revenues.

Guyana tourism package

CNOOC’s 2024 financial statements reveal its involvement in the Gas-to-Energy project. Would Mr. Colling disclose the total expenditure of all Stabroek Block partners – ExxonMobil, Hess, and CNOOC – on this project claimed as recoverable cost in 2024, the amount carried forward to 2025, and the total amount of expenditure on this project to which they are committed?

When reported profits bear no relationship to the actual profit oil received ($10.4 billion reported vs. $1.9 billion actual entitlement), how do these statements meet IFRS’s overriding requirement for true and fair presentation? The statements create more confusion than clarity about the companies’ actual financial relationship with Guyana.

Guyana tourism package

IAS 24 contains extensive requirements of disclosures concerning Related Parties. Does Mr. Colling honestly believe that the few lines in Note 14 to Exxon’s financial statements meet these requirements?

Mr. Colling’s commitment to fact-based engagement also provides an opportunity to address several historical irregularities that have gone unaddressed for years.

  1. In 2018, I analysed the audited financial statements of all three companies and found their claimed US$460 million in pre-contract costs at year end 2015 exceeded by at least US$92 million the total investment shown in their own financial statements? Almost a decade later, this discrepancy remains unexplained.
  2. Esso was the sole contractor under the 1999 Stabroek Agreement. Shell bought in and later exited before discovery. Can Mr. Colling explain whether the proceeds from that transaction and subsequent sales to Hess and CNOOC were brought into the books of the local branch or were paid offshore? If the latter, that would not only violate the 2016 Agreement but raise serious integrity issues.
  3. Can Mr. Colling tell us whether as an external company, Exxon was granted a licence for the land on which its Head Office is being constructed and whether the company will recover those costs under the Agreement?

The similarities between Mr. Colling’s letter and the Ministry of Natural Resources’ statement a few days earlier is cause for suspicion. While using identical talking points, they studiously avoid the actual compliance violations repeatedly raised. Mr. Colling now has a further opportunity to demonstrate his stated commitment to transparency. If ExxonMobil’s financial reporting truly provides the “consistency and transparency” claimed, addressing these questions should be straightforward.

While I sincerely wish to take Mr. Colling at his word, having considered his responses and for the reasons set out, I still hold that Exxon’s accounting is indefensibly lacking.  As a public interest company, Exxon shows no respect for the people of Guyana, weaponising accounting complexity to avoid informed public scrutiny. Just like the Government does.

Guyana tourism package

By 2057, when these companies depart with their profits, our children will inherit the bitter legacy of resource wealth managed through financial statements designed to confuse rather than illuminate.

Respectfully,

 Christopher Ram

Posted on

An ailing octogenarian is being heartlessly denied his pension by the NIS

Yesterday, Nathan Craig, a frail 80-year-old Linden man, barely able to stand, let alone walk, was brought into our office. Craig’s appeal for his pension was heard fourteen years after it was lodged in 2010. No sooner had he won, than the heartless NIS lodged an appeal to a non-existent Commissioner of National Insurance.

Here we have Mr. Craig, penniless and fragile, deprived of his rights by an NIS whose strategy is to wait pensioners out. His story is not dissimilar to Zainul’s, the carpenter whose success in court angered the NIS, the AG and the Government, all of whom have left him out to dry. Zainul is paying the price for his less than honest employer, the NIS and the AG’s chambers. Craig is paying the price for the failure of the President to perform the simple task of appointing the Commissioner of National Insurance and the refusal of the NIS to follow the law laid down in an earlier judgment of the Chief Justice.  

The whole purpose of the NIS was to provide financial relief for the elderly through the contributions of the workers and their employers. The duty of the NIS was to oversee the employers and to maintain accurate records of contributions. Partly because of political control, poor management and its failure to carry out its statutory functions, the NIS has caused grief and suffering to probably tens of thousands of contributors, many of whom departed this world without justice. 

For one thing: it is not currently for want of money. The NIS’ financial fortunes began to rise with the influx of highly paid persons in the expanding economy. The injection of the $10 Bn was like a bonus and could have been used to address many of the Scheme’s more fundamental problems. Instead, the staff of the NIS are bullying and blackmailing aggrieved persons into giving up their right to a pension in exchange for a one-off grant. 

An ailing octogenarian (Craig) must now wait for the appointment of a Commissioner of National Insurance for the NIS appeal to be heard! Zainul, a septuagenarian, has to wait for the opportunity to climb those high court stairs again. And let us not forget Julia Clarke who may have to wait another six months for the NIS to respond to her lawyer’s letter. 

That is the sad state of our NIS.

Thank you, President Ali.

Christopher Ram

Posted on

Walking with Exxon down the path to the Resource Curse

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 164

“State capture is understood as efforts by private actors and public actors with private interests to redirect public policy decisions away from the public interest, using corrupt means and clustering around certain state organs and functions.”: Transparency International, Examining State Capture (2020), p. 8

Introduction

Exxon last week, through John Colling, its local Chief of Finance, reacted sharply to an article appearing in the Kaieteur News based on last week’s column For the Good Times which cast doubts on the company’s 2024 financial statements. It was the first such letter and one wonders whether the outrage was caused by the letter itself or the references to Yahoo Finance and Bloomberg, two prominent members of the financial press. I subsequently sought to engage Mr. Colling and started a conversation with him by asking several questions. There is one further question I have for him: tell me John, do all of these billions in sales have no cost?  

Let’s get to today’s column for which the quotation above seems dangerously relevant – the capture of the state by the oil companies, in collusion with or independent of state actors. Transparency International reminds us that state capture is no relic of corrupt old regimes – it is alive and well wherever powerful private interests find weak institutions and politicians to bend to their will. We missed the signs from 2016 when Exxon “roughed up” GGMC’s top managers and when David Granger made Raphael Trotman sign one of the worst petroleum contracts for the past fifty years. Signs that were reinforced from the time the PPP/C came to power in 2020 and reneged on every commitment to robustly challenge the company and the contract.

The Minister was serious

The pattern continues with more brazenness and absurdity when the minister responsible for the sector can justify the breach of promise about an independent Petroleum Commission by saying that this will lead to delays. Yes, he was serious! It is that mindset that shapes us into a textbook example of how the seeds of the resource curse are planted, nurtured and promoted – not by accident, but by design. Not by divine forces but by Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo.

It started with concealment of the 2016 Agreement and the so-called signing bonus. More recently we have seen the Government batting for indefensible accounting, concealment of information, secret deals on sports, the gas to energy project, the company’s head office building and manipulation of the Agreement itself. The government – the supposed guardian of the public interest – has become the junior partner in its own capture.

Unreadable books

By any standard and despite its protestations, Exxon’s financial reporting in Guyana is incomplete, opaque, and at times downright misleading. It is like accounting for dummies, which I covered in last week’s column and a letter in yesterday’s SN. I do not think for one minute that these are cases of innocent oversight. ExxonMobil is not a naïve operator; it employs some of the world’s most sophisticated accountants, lawyers, and lobbyists. It knows exactly how to bury costs to inflate profits, confident that “the formula” explains everything, and that it can get away with ii.

PPP: From Gatekeeper to Junior Partner and cheerleader

Sadly, this is not a failure of corporate responsibility, but of governance. When Transparency International defines state capture, it does not single out only the private actors. It warns that public actors – the very government ministries and officials entrusted to protect the national interest — become co-opted too. The party that once promised to revisit the abominable contract now hides behind excuses and empty talk of ‘stability.’ It tells the people it cannot push Exxon too hard — we might scare away investment or worse, and weaken our security position against Venezuela’s claim. The same kind of thinking that brought Jim Jones – and shame – to Guyana.

The PPP government has made itself a willing accomplice to Exxon’s entrenchment. It refuses to renegotiate the 2016 agreement even though the text permits it. It stalls the creation of an independent Petroleum Commission, knowing full well that genuine independence would mean rigorous audits, clear accounts and proper cost verification.

When a government that should defend the people’s patrimony instead defends the company’s privilege, that is state capture in its purest form.

Cricket lovely cricket

Exxon has so convincingly turned accounting into the magician’s trick, they needed a popular national distraction. President Ali calls on “Alistair” to meet Guyana’s franchise cricket team, reminiscent of the Saudis and the Qataris in the new trend of sportswashing.  Exxon knows that cricket is no ordinary sport in Guyana and spends freely to wrap its name around our players, our national stadium and placing the national flag in the hands of spectators. In the spirit of panem et circenses, (bread and circus), it has achieved a public relations coup, bought cheaply with sponsorships while we strain to pay their taxes from funds otherwise available to build roads, schools and hospitals.

The President plays his part, granting unlawful tax concessions to Exxon and those more directly involved, helping to boost the Exxon’s image and distracting from the exploitation of the country – further evidence of state capture. It does not end there. Government has pulled the oil companies into the gas to energy project, with the trademark no disclosure, no accounting and no reporting. The billions in 2024 cost oil no doubt hide huge sums attributable to the project. Exxon bankrolls it — but on what terms? Who verifies the billions that will be claimed as cost oil before Guyana gets its share? With no independent Petroleum Commission in place, we are left to trust that the same players who are not forthcoming about costs on the Stabroek Block will suddenly discover the virtue of full disclosure.

Conclusion

This entire charade is crowned by fear. The fear that if we push Exxon too hard, it will pack up, and take America’s security shield with it — leaving us exposed to Venezuela’s aggression over the Essequibo. That threat is real. But using it to excuse gross imbalance is the final stroke of capture. When a government is so compromised that it cannot even use the renegotiation clause for fear of angering its corporate patron, it loses the moral and practical authority to govern in the people’s interest.

Jagan, Damon, Cuffy, Rodney and the Enmore Martyrs fought for our freedom, our sovereignty and our country. Sadly, Granger, Trotman Jagdeo and Ali seem bent on reversing those heroic contributions. Transparency International’s warning should be pinned to every office wall from Main Street to the Ministry of Natural Resources: state capture is not just corruption — it is the gateway to turning oil wealth into oil dependence, oil anger, oil poverty and ultimately the oil curse.