Category: Uncategorized

December 15, 2024

The Natural Resource Fund Debate – That Demands Accountability and Civility

The public debate and exchanges surrounding the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) highlight concerns about governance and the need for principled public discourse, particularly on grave national importance. At the centre is Dr Terrence Campbell, the holder of a PhD in Business Administration and a successful entrepreneur. In a letter to the media in his capacity as a member of the Investment Committee of the Natural Resource Fund, Campbell raised issues about transparency and compliance with the NRF Act. That letter emphasised the requirements of Section 16(2), which mandates that all withdrawals must meet specific criteria: financing national development priorities and major natural disasters.

Instead of prompting constructive debate, Campbell was personally attacked by anonymous bloggers and partisans who offered little substance while serving as a prelude to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s direct intervention.

Jagdeo’s Missteps

In an initial comment, Mr Jagdeo accused Campbell of racism and, more recently, dismissed Campbell’s concerns by invoking a contrast between their respective upbringings. Jagdeo portrayed himself as humbly rooted on the East Coast of Demerara, implying that Campbell was urban and privileged. Correcting the Vice President, Campbell noted that he came out of the distant community of Mahdia with all its attendant challenges.

Taken together, Jagdeo’s statements reveal a dangerously flawed interpretation of the NRF Act. He asserted that detailed expenditure tracking was only necessary for emergency withdrawals, ignoring Section 16(2)’s clear stipulation that all withdrawals must meet specified criteria and undergo oversight. Emergency spending, governed by supplementary appropriation bills, requires a separate process distinct from the scrutiny of annual budgetary allocations. Jagdeo’s conflation of national priorities with general budget items further undermined his position, raising questions about his familiarity and knowledge of the law.

Campbell’s Measured Response

Campbell’s reply demonstrated civility and focus. While acknowledging Jagdeo’s slight concession – from declaring tracking “difficult” to agreeing to track emergencies – Campbell questioned why the same standard could not extend to all NRF withdrawals. Campbell emphasised that the national budget, filled with discretionary items, is not synonymous with national development priorities. He reiterated the NRF Act’s requirement for specificity and accountability, challenging Jagdeo to provide a legal basis for his distinction.

The Governance Gap

This debate underscores a broader concern about the NRF’s governance. Campbell’s call for the NRF Board and the Public Accountability and Oversight Committee to discharge their statutory duties reflects a commitment to the rule of law. These entities must ensure that all withdrawals align with the criteria set out in Section 16(2). If the government wishes to bypass these requirements, it should approach Parliament to amend the law – not reinterpret it to suit its agenda.

Jagdeo’s familiarity with the NRF Act adds another layer to the critique. He has been successively junior Finance Minister, Finance Minister, President and Vice President since 1992. He also led the attack on the Coalition Government’s NRF. He was in the National Assembly when the Ali Administration passed its version of the NRF in a late-night session of the National Assembly. And, of course, he has access to the Hansard of that debate.

Therefore, he should fully understand the distinctions between national priorities, emergency measures, and their respective legislative processes. His current misrepresentation undermines the principles of accountability outlined in the Act and emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which committed the NRF to international best practices, including transparency and public reporting.

A Lesson for Public Discourse

Campbell’s approach offers a valuable example of how national debates should be conducted. Despite personal attacks, he remained composed and focused on the law. His critics, including anonymous bloggers, should note that public discourse benefits from substance, not ad hominem attacks. Jagdeo and his defenders would also do well to emulate Campbell’s civility and clarity.

Fixing the problems

There is no question in my mind that the Vice President’s use of words like “balkanisation” and “difficulty” and his subsequent concession on national disasters makes his interpretation less flawed or less mistaken. The Ali Administration needs to step back from this grave error and restore confidence in the entire NRF framework and operation. It must ensure that all withdrawals comply with Section 16(2)’s criteria without artificial distinctions between spending categories, that the NRF Board and oversight committees be independent, and that detailed public reporting on all NRF expenditures – whether for national priorities or emergencies – must become standard.

Public discourse must also rise above personal attacks. By fostering a culture of constructive engagement, Guyana can ensure that the NRF fulfils its potential as a tool for sustainable development and intergenerational equity.

Conclusion

The NRF is a historically unique opportunity for Guyana to secure its future. Its governance must reflect the highest transparency, accountability, and legal compliance standards, consistent with the Santiago principles. Jagdeo’s flawed interpretation of the NRF Act and the uncritical defences from his supporters highlight the urgent need for a course correction.

As someone who has been engaging in public discourses for nearly forty years, I found Campbell’s intervention bringing a much-needed sense of lucidity, decency and renewal. We all need to follow his example and commit to principled debate, ensuring that the NRF serves the people – not the politics of one man.

To the Editor,

The government’s proposed amendments to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act (the Act) should cause concern among property owners, legal practitioners and citizens. While the Bill seeks to address specific issues, it fails to modernise the framework to respect the Constitution and reflect fairness, transparency, and equity.

Even though no individual property owner should be permitted to obstruct critical national development projects unreasonably, this legitimate concern must be balanced against the constitutional rights of citizens and principles of fair compensation. The solution lies not in maintaining an antiquated framework that undervalues private property rights, but in establishing a modern, equitable system that serves both public and private interests.

In my 22 March 2024 column in the Stabroek News “Time for a Fairer Compulsory Acquisition”, I advocated for positive reforms that balance development needs with property owners’ constitutional rights. This Bill represents the opposite of such reform, retaining and reinforcing outdated practices and failing to address the inherent inequities in compulsory acquisition.

The principal legislation is rooted in the misconception that “market value” without more represents fair compensation. Compulsory acquisition, by its very nature, deprives citizens of their property involuntarily. As such, compensation must reflect not just the property’s market value but the forced nature of the transaction, including the psychological pain of disposition. Fair compensation should include a premium—no less than 25% above market value – to account for this dispossession, a principle recognised in progressive jurisdictions worldwide, including India. A simple amendment to section 19 of the Act would address the problem.

In 1990, the formal role of the Chief Valuation Officer (CVO) in executing the application of the Act was officially eliminated. Yet, the Government has continued to present the CVO, cloaked with the air of officialdom, at meetings with citizens whose property it intends to acquire under the Act at deflated values. Since the CVO is a government employee, the perception of bias and impartiality is inescapable. Modern legislation across jurisdictions provides for a Board or Panel of Assessors for valuation purposes.

A caring Government would not make a 1914 legislation more oppressive and backward but would embrace reforms that ensure:

1. Compensation includes a compulsory acquisition premium above market value.
2. Valuations are conducted transparently and independently of State influence.
3. Public confidence is restored in the fairness of the process.
4. Transparency and public disclosure.

As Guyana undergoes transformative economic development, we must ensure that national progress does not come at the cost of citizens’ rights. The Bill represents a crude and cynical reaction by the executive to a ruling by a judge of the High Court against the Government in a compulsory acquisition case. If there is a measure of perverse fairness in this retrograde step, its victims will be government supporters and non-supporters.

If that is not bad enough, it appears to be an attempt by the Executive to override a first-instance court decision, bypassing the normal appellate process. More troubling still is the possibility that this legislation could be applied retroactively to matters already before the Courts. Such an approach strikes at the heart of the rule of law and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It sets a dangerous precedent where dissatisfied with judicial decisions, the Executive might routinely resort to legislative amendments rather than pursuing proper legal appeals.

This Bill should be withdrawn forthwith.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Part 18 – November 14, 2024

Modi’s visit – euphoria vs. reality

Introduction

The first visit to Guyana by an Indian Prime Minister since 1968 played out well for Narendra Modi back home. The twin objectives of the three-day visit were the CARICOM-India Summit and bilateral talks with Guyana, exchanges between the world’s most populous country and part of the Indian subcontinent and a tiny region of fifteen member countries and five associates, all with a population of sixteen million. While both talks were held in Guyana, the Guyana and Indian press were all about the relationship with Guyana, a country with a significant share of its population tracing its origin to India. No wonder Modi described feeling “a spiritual bond” during his stay in Guyana.

For its part, Guyana outdid its reputation for hospitality. For the entire visit, the country was all about the Prime Minister, who was equally generous about his hosts, describing Guyana as boasting one of the most vibrant democracies in the Caribbean region. The carefully choreographed visit saw Modi receive Guyana’s Order of Excellence amid enthusiastic diaspora celebrations and declarations of spiritual connection. Yet, beneath the near euphoric embrace of cultural affinity and shared historical bonds lay more nuanced and transactional calculations from both countries.

Rhetoric v Reality

It is not entirely clear that Modi’s lofty rhetoric reflected the political realities in the two countries. Neither did the cultural symbolism and forward-looking plans, which mask the complex interplay between diplomatic aspiration and strategic reality of both countries. For example, his emphasis on democratic values, repeatedly calling India “the mother of democracy,” and his praise of the vibrancy of Guyana’s democratic credentials seem excessive. India’s documented democratic backsliding under Modi – including Freedom House’s downgrade to “Partly Free” status and that country’s rating by the V-Dem Institute as an “electoral autocracy” classification are well known.

For its part, Guyana has lost its parliamentary vigour; inclusionary democracy has given way to a winner-takes-all culture in which critical constitutional provisions are treated with half-measures and where accountability and transparency are superficial. During the visit, the absence of scheduled meetings with Guyana’s parliamentary opposition further underscored the country’s democratic deficit, reflecting a pattern of limited opposition engagement that characterises both nations’ current political landscapes.

The visit’s concrete outcomes, particularly regarding energy, revealed Guyana’s transactional approach even when dealing with a trusted friend and ally. The cynical delegation by the Guyana President to his Natural Resources Minister, Vickram Bharrat, to respond to requests from India for the sale of its share of profit oil from the Stabroek Block was disrespectful to Prime Minister Modi. It was in poor taste for Bharrat to state that Guyana “will make a decision at some point in time”. That was compounded by Vice President Jagdeo’s denial that Guyana’s sale of crude has been discussed. This matter was raised with Vickram Bharrat when he visited India very early this year. This uninspiring response about lifts was particularly striking given that a simple deferral of one cargo lift could have facilitated a deal, suggesting a more selfish transactional approach by Guyana.

Omissions

A business column must also note the absence of tangible action to advance discussions on fundamental economic frameworks – specifically a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and a Double Taxation Agreement. These omissions are significant given India’s interest in acquiring stakes in Guyana’s oil exploration blocks and Modi’s rhetoric about comprehensive partnership. Without these basic treaties, which provide legal certainty and protection for cross-border investments and clear tax frameworks, substantial Indian investment in Guyana’s oil sector remains complicated. Despite months of preparation for the visit, the absence of progress on these fundamental agreements suggests a lack of detailed pre-visit negotiations or more fundamental hesitations about deepening economic ties.

The public reports did not mention any substantive dialogue about Guyana potentially joining BRICS+ despite India being a vital member of this expanding economic bloc. This omission, coupled with the lack of progress on basic economic frameworks, suggests that both countries carefully calibrate their relationship within broader geopolitical contexts. For Guyana, balancing its emerging role as a major oil producer with existing Western and Chinese partnerships and its regional obligations requires careful diplomatic navigation.

The visit also overlooked Guyana’s historical significance in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a curious omission given both countries’ shared heritage in this forum and current discussions about Global South solidarity. This silence probably served a mutual and uncomfortable truth – in the case of India, the role in that Movement of the Congress Party of India, regarded by Modi as a significant opponent, and in the case of Guyana, the outstanding role of the late Forbes Burnham, former Prime Minister of Guyana and leader of the now opposition party in Guyana in NAM.

The preferred route

Both sides might also have had their strategic interests to consider. For Guyana, Venezuela’s territorial claims to Guyana’s natural resources-rich Essequibo region cast a long shadow over any major oil sector decisions. Modi’s silence on this controversy, while diplomatically expedient given India’s interests in Venezuela, highlighted the intricate calculations involved. The Ali Administration, having benefitted from the USA’s role in resolving the 2020 elections impasse, has strengthened its economic and security ties with that country. It may also be hoping that President-elect Donald Trump will help usher in a less antagonistic and bellicose government in Venezuela.

Instead, the two leaders stuck to safe diplomatic territory, such as cultural connections, and the strengthening of cooperation with promises in sectors like healthcare, education and agriculture, although significantly not sugar. Any discussion would have invoked the Chinese elephant in the room and possibly the recognition that sugar may soon cross the precipice of survivability.

Conclusion

Several factors suggest genuine and increasing opportunities for deeper engagement in a potentially mutually beneficial relationship: India’s position as the world’s third-largest oil consumer and Guyana’s interest in exploiting its petroleum possibilities as quickly as possible. The reelection of Donald Trump as US President will change – for the better or worse – all international equations, particularly in the Middle East and Ukraine. The implications for Guyana can be significant, and it clearly does not consider that it is in its interest to strike deals that might not please Trump.

In real and tangible ways, the visit resulted in net gains for Guyana, while India’s only request was denied. When a diplomat as astute as the Indian Foreign Minister says India is not disappointed, you can be sure they are. If there is some irony, Guyana has a much faster growth rate than India, and its per capita GDP is several times that of Guyana.

Yet, Modi would have gained from at least three sources. The publicity back home was all positive; Guyana was reminded that China is not the only Asian powerhouse with which it can do business. And personally, for Modi, enhancing his international standing was a badly needed tonic after his June election setback, in which his party lost its parliamentary majority.

November 10, 2024

Trump 2.0: Economic Lessons and Challenges for Guyana

Introduction

A transactional electorate has overwhelmingly voted to return to the presidency in the United States of America a convicted felon, a misogynist, a businessman who owes his success to scamming, the exploitation of the tax and bankruptcy laws of that country, and a man who has been ordered by the courts to pay millions for sexual assault. And just a small bit of irony – he will be sworn in at the same place where he led an insurrection four years earlier.

For contrasting reasons, Trump’s re-election is particularly significant for Guyana and the rest of the world – north and south, democratic and unfree, rich and poor, large and small. Trump befriends and admires Russia’s Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Hungary’s strongman Victor Orban while calling the leaders of his domestic Democratic rivals “enemies from within,” threatening to let loose the Justice Department to deal with them. I have always treated the moniker of America as the “greatest country on earth” with grave doubts, but certainly that would not now earn a place on a late-night comedy show.

Trump 1

Trump was first elected President in 2016 when Guyana had only just had a few oil discoveries under David Granger, and it was in the twilight of Trump 1 that the USA intervened to impose clarity and democracy in Guyana by bringing Granger to his senses and ushering in the Ali Administration. Now, with Trump 2 only a matter of months away, Guyana faces the prospects and challenges from a dramatically different position than during his first term.

In 2016, Caribbean analysts warned of increased protectionism, reduced development assistance, and challenges to correspondent banking relationships – predictions that largely materialised. This time around, as a not insignificant oil producer, Guyana must navigate these renewed challenges with ExxonMobil’s role as an extension of US foreign policy in our midst and playing an outsize, dominant role in Guyana’s economy, politics and society.

Trump’s promised trade policies – including a 20% tariff on all imports and 60% on Chinese goods – echo the protectionist stance that characterised his first presidency. Oil is Guyana’s biggest export to the USA, and it would be interesting to see whether Exxon’s and Hess’ oil imports in the USA will escape Trump’s tariffs. It would be the greatest irony if the US’s IRS allows Exxon and Hess to claim a credit for taxes which we in Guyana pay but imposes Trump’s tariff on their imports of Guyana oil into the USA. While the Stabroek Block is Exxon’s and Hess’ Kohinoor (jewel in their crown), Trump might want to promote America’s oil production over imports.

Oil

But Guyana exports to the USA is more than oil. Caught in any genaralised tariffs could be agricultural produce, seafoods and gold. If Exxon and Hess face any pushback in the US from their Guyana production, they will play hardball with Guyana to prevent any setbacks to their good fortune. As I expressed in 143 of the Oil and Gas column this past Friday, their resistance to renegotiation of the 2016 Agreement will be even greater than it is today.

But however oil is dealt with as a tariff issue, the impact of Trump 2 on oil price is even more certain and consequential. Already we have seen the fall in price with expectations of further reductions over the next year. If there is the easing of geopolitical risks, the ending of the Russian – Ukrainian war, Israel’s declaration of victory and its war aims, prices can really tumble with grave implications for the budget. These are real prospects and the backdrop to Government’s announcement of its intention to seek a supplementary budget for the $60 Bn or more to pay the $100,000 cash grant to all Guyanese. No time for explaining that there are two sides to a budget – the expenditure authorisation side and the funding side. We are still to be told where the money will come from, or its impact on inflation and the exchange rate. But that is an aside.

Trump 2

Trump is likely to pull out from the Paris Accord (again) heightening the risk of accelerated global warming with direct, catastrophic consequences to low-lying countries like Guyana. The change from the Trump 1 era to Trump 2 era is that Guyana has moved up in the league to being a rich country to which development assistance might no longer be available.

There must be tens of thousands of Guyanese caught in the deportation drive. That will pose a huge housing, economic and social challenge to the Guyana economy and society even as we seek to accommodate and adapt to the huge influx of Venezuelans in Guyana. It is unclear how prepared Guyana is, but I worked with Joe Harmon in an NGO providing assistance for compulsory returnees and am aware of the huge challenges which arise.

Responding to Trumpism

The lessons from Trump’s first term show that reliance on a single market or sector creates dangerous vulnerabilities. The Ali Administration has itself become trapped by the Dutch Disease even as we hear of job losses in the oil sector, the outsourcing sector and even a prominent bakery, all on top of the destruction to our village economies with the proliferation of Chinese businesses in every corner of the country.

While oil dominates our current economic discourse, we must strengthen the existing sectors and create the conditions for the diversification into a robust, resilient economy. This is not a job task for the Government alone and it is sad to see how little the major private sector companies contribute to import substitution, let alone exports. Nand Persaud in rice best serves Guyana and while GuySuCo produces some sugar, the cost of maintaining the Corporation is prohibitive and possibly unsustainable. So much on the shelves from the supermarkets – including water, for Pete’s sake – is imported, as are chicken, eggs, fish, beef and pork, vegetables etc.

ONE GUYANA is a good political slogan. Let us paraphrase Trump and make PUT GUYANA FIRST our economic motto,

November 03, 2024

Jagdeo promises gross constitutional violation: Ali needs to assert his authority.

Introduction

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo – in one of the government’s most egregiously constitutional violations – announced at his weekly press conference at the PPP/C’s headquarters that the government has no intention to seek parliamentary approval for the already bungled cash payout of oil money to Guyanese at home and abroad.

Article 217 of our Constitution could not be more precise in its requirements: no moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund except through proper legislative authorisation. This is not mere bureaucratic red tape – it represents the fundamental barrier between democratic governance and autocratic rule. When Jagdeo dismisses these requirements as inconvenient obstacles to “government flexibility,” he is not just expressing an administrative preference but advocating for dismantling vital constitutional provisions and safeguards against financial abuse.

A public declaration by the Vice President that the Government will ignore this vital constitutional provision in the distribution of over sixty billion dollars or nearly three hundred million United States dollars without legislative authoritative authority and parliamentary oversight represents more than just administrative overreach – it signals a dangerous drift toward autocratic governance that should alarm every Guyanese citizen. President Ali’s apparent acquiescence to this constitutional subversion is more troubling, marking a profound failure in his primary duty as guardian of our Constitution.

Resource Curse

This cavalier disregard for the constitutional Framework invites comparisons with many third-world countries that have fallen victim to the Resource Curse. However, we need only look at neighbouring Venezuela to see where profligacy and thoughtless spending lead. In the early years of its oil boom, Venezuela similarly began bypassing legislative oversight for direct disbursements, arguing for “flexibility” in helping its citizens. This erosion of institutional checks and balances contributed significantly to the eventual mismanagement of its oil wealth and the following economic crisis. Remember Guyanese, Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world.

We have forgotten our country’s lesson from the Burnham era, which showed the dangers of concentrated power over national resources. The constitutional provisions Jagdeo now seeks to circumvent were designed to prevent the recurrence of such centralised control over public funds.

The darkening path

This is not the first instance of financial abuse by the Ali administration. In the 2022 Budget, approximately five billion dollars were allocated for contingency relief, a process hitherto unknown in Guyana. Ram & McRae warned at that time that this was just the beginning. Now, we are facing tens of billions more in even looser and larger situations. What started as general grants with weak controls is now evolving into more perilous forms of arbitrary power. We cannot overlook the trend: insufficient oversight over exploiting the country’s national resources is being used to undertake development projects outside the legislative purview. It is evident that every decision and action taken—including spending on programs and projects—is being executed not through constitutional mechanisms but through executive decree, with no meaningful checks or balances in place.

Mr Jagdeo’s creative justification for resisting Elder Kwayana’s call for legislation to regulate the proposed grant, was that that would create “rigid recurrent expenditures”. That is absolute nonsense, and I do not think that the Vice President himself believes it. It suggests, however, that whatever he thinks, he views constitutional constraints as impediments rather than essential safeguards. This concentration of power in the executive branch, particularly in Jagdeo’s hands, represents a clear and present danger to our democratic institutions. It is time that Guyanese take note.

This is not only about legal and constitutional technicalities. The absence of legislative debate, careful drafting, and parliamentary oversight in these massive cash distributions creates a stream of financial and governance failures. Opposition oversight is dispensed with, and there are no defined procedures for auditors to follow, while public accountability simply does not exist. Perhaps most dangerously, the door opens wide for political manipulation of these distributions, turning what should be national wealth into a tool for political control.

Ali’s duty

We also recall that the decision on the cash grant ostensibly came from President Ali. Since that announcement, however, Jagdeo has jumped into the driver’s seat and has varied Ali’s ideas beyond recognition. By his silence, President Ali, the Head of State and the primary guardian of our Constitution is demonstrating a glaring failure to prevent this overreach, amounting to a dereliction of duty. The President has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to stand by while his Vice President systematically undermines it.

President Ali has to show who appointed whom, assert his constitutional role, direct what the process requires, and demand a proper legislative framework for these distributions. The National Assembly must reclaim its rightful oversight role, and civil society must unite in opposition to this dangerous precedent. Our nation’s future hangs in the balance, and silence is no longer an option.

The moment demands action from every citizen, every parliamentarian, and every civil society organisation to stand firm in defense of our Constitution. Our nation’s future depends on it.