Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

In a response to comments made by the Canadian High Commissioner on the final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission, President Irfaan Ali described the September 1st elections as “free and fair, beyond a shadow of doubt,” and that they were conducted “efficiently and reliably.” While the President is entitled to his view, he must appreciate that elections do not become credible merely because a participant proclaims them so.

Notably, the EU carefully avoided using the term “free and fair”, a descriptor which has been replaced by “credible”, when an Elections Observer Mission considers that an election meets basic democratic thresholds. Its report was professionally prepared, evidence based, each finding was supported by tables, graphs and charts based on thorough and objective observations and facts. By contrast, the President offered none. Ali’s own abuse of his office in the pre-election period was egregious and well documented. His party’s misuse of the State media, its apparatus and resources meticulously documented in the EU’s report, was evident to all.  

President Ali had no reservations when the EU Mission issued almost identical recommendations in 2020 – very, very few of which have been implemented. It is worth noting too, that despite being a constitutional body, GECOM is not subject to a dedicated financial or performance audit. This is an extraordinary omission for an institution that now absorbs billions annually and is dormant for the greatest part of five years.

It is equally difficult to reconcile claims of “efficiency” with an electoral system that is, by every measurable standard, the most expensive per voter in the world. Guyana continues to spend unprecedented sums to maintain an oversized electoral machinery, yet many of the structural weaknesses identified by both international and domestic observers after each elections remain uncorrected.

GECOM has unilaterally concluded that statutory provisions on election-expense reporting have “fallen into disuse.” In other words, GECOM, which should carry out the law, casually ignores and disregards it.

The voters’ list remains inflated by the names of persons long deceased, even as the law provides for continuous cleansing. The constitutional and statutory requirements regarding Commonwealth citizens have, by GECOM’s own admission, been wrongly applied, with the result that ineligible persons voted in the elections.

The WIN party, which had previously donated tens of millions of dollars to Ali’s PPP/C, encountered hindrances to their participation in the 2025 elections, once it became clear that it posed the greatest threat to the PPP/C.   

These are not markers of efficiency or credibility. They mark institutional drift, weak compliance with the law, and a tolerance for practices that heighten cost and undermine democracy. Public confidence is earned not through political declarations but through transparency, accountability, and the consistent application of the law.

The EU Mission’s report offers no endorsement of credibility, let alone free and fair. Its silence speaks louder than any political rhetoric or reassurance.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Every Man, Woman and Child must become oil minded – Column no. 169

Introduction

Like some of my fellow commentators, I wanted to give the Ali Administration some space following the September 1 elections. In the campaign season leading up to the elections, candidate Ali promised to fix the problems plaguing the embarrassing and gross failure of the operations of the Access to Information Act. Three weeks after, nothing has been done. I am prepared to wait a little longer.

Regarding the natural resources sector, particularly petroleum, the President has reappointed the same leadership team – a decision that has not inspired universal confidence. On the government’s approach to the 2016 Agreement, he has made it clear that he intends to preserve its lopsided, anti-Guyana provisions, which significantly hamper effective contract administration, management, and oversight. The administration has prioritised “sanctity of contract” over “review and renegotiate.” While I was initially prepared to wait and observe, two recent developments in this sector demand immediate attention.

Developments

The first is the announcement by the Ministry of Natural Resources that it has approved the US$6.8 billion Hammerhead project which is expected to produce 150,000 barrels of oil per day, with first oil projected for 2029. The Licence is granted under Deed and is widely available, allowing for a comprehensive analysis by petroleum technologists and engineers. It includes and sets the benchmarks against which operations can be measured.

Readers will recall that the Stabroek Block was awarded to Exxon, CNOOC and Hess under the Petroleum Agreement and Production Act (1986), but this Act was replaced by the Petroleum Activities Act of 2023. The Regulations referenced in the Licence are those of 1986 which must cause some confusion and overlap.

Under these instruments, the Govern-ment has the right to attach conditions to aid better administration. But while the Licence imposes several obligations on the oil companies, it is silent on the two most contentious issues – ring-fencing and insurance. 

The second was a statement out of the United States of America that three US lawmakers had written to ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods demanding answers about perceived “tax evasion” inherent in the same 2016 oil contract that Guyana keeps celebrating. This tells you everything about how seriously these two countries take their revenue base.

The contrast could not be more striking. For Guyana, it was all adolescent excitement, over an unqualified production licence, from which Exxon will reap the lion’s share of revenue. For the USA, it was seven tough questions with an October 23rd deadline. Show us proof or defend the fraud. 

Congrats OGGN

The USA development arose from proactive action on the part of OGGN, operating as an NGO in that country with the objective of getting a better deal for Guyana. The same NGO on whom a constitutional office holder in Guyana, secretly moonlighting for Exxon, had “sicked” the IRS, hoping to have it deregistered. Dave Martins might ask, “Who is the patriot and who is the sellout?

The US Senators – Whitehouse, Van Hollen, and Merkley – think that ExxonMobil is using fake Guyanese tax certificates to rob American taxpayers of vast sums of tax dollars each year. They want to know if ExxonMobil actually paid any taxes in Guyana, or whether it is all a huge cross-border scam.

Here is the tax arrangement under Article 15.4 and 15.5 of the Agreement:  1. ExxonMobil prepares tax return → 2. Minister gets money from oil fund → 3. Minister pays ExxonMobil’s taxes to GRA → 4. GRA issues receipt in ExxonMobil’s name → 5. ExxonMobil uses certificate to claim a tax credit in the USA.

In practice, however, the substantive steps set out in 2, 3 and 4 above are not executed, raising grave doubts about the legality of the entire process, of which Exxon, a company not famous for its embrace of high moral and ethical standards, is a willing partner. OGGN has shown persistence and determination in persuading three courageous US senators to expose the grave omissions by the Guyana authorities, and from the US side, Exxon’s and Hess’ willing use of improperly issued tax certificates to obtain vast sums by way of tax credit.

It is incomprehensible that the Government of Guyana, which subscribes to the Santiago Principles, believes that it can succeed indefinitely in violating its own laws and the norms of accountability and transparency.  Under the principle of rule of law, being in government does not place you above the law. Rather, it imposes an even higher standard of conduct for acting within the law, to set the standard of good governance, and to enforcement against all citizens and residents.

Exxon’s discomfort 

Exxon knows that the tax certificates it presents to the IRS, GRA’s counterpart, have not been properly issued. It scrutinises the local press for negative coverage and cannot feign ignorance of the nature of the tax certificates it receives. Given the several instances in which the government has brought it into schemes that serve their mutual purpose, it may have felt that the rule of law has given way to the rule of power. So much so that John Colling, ExxonMobil’s Vice President and Business Services Manager for ExxonMobil Guyana, felt free to disregard questions from me that go to the essence of his company’s accounting and ethical practices. John may not be aware of the local saying that time is longer than twine – that things catch up on you.

My case against Charles Ramson for his failure to provide me with almost identical information now being sought by the US senators from Exxon’s Chairman Darren Woods will soon come up. Those senators have given Woods a very narrow timeframe to meet their request for answers. Woods will have to respond under threat of the escalation of the matter. 

One way or the other, the smoking gun will be activated. It is likely to cause embarrassment and have significant and powerful consequences for both the government and the American oil companies. 

Dear Editor,

I welcome the openness with which retired Chancellor Carl Singh has sought to explain the paralysis of the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC). Unfortunately, the explanations sound less like accountability and more like excuses.

By lamenting the delays in obtaining fans and paper, Chancellor Singh’s comments fail to reflect the seriousness of a Commission established pursuant to a constitutional mandate. Each commissioner is paid some $200,000 per month, for what has so far amounted to the occasional meeting. The Chair, no doubt, enjoys a substantial package. Are we to believe that this generous remuneration is justified by “orientation” sessions and tutorials on the Constitution? The University of Guyana runs an entire semester on constitutional law, and that is only part of the subject. If the CRC, populated by lawyers, ministers, and professionals, truly needs basic instruction before starting its work, then the undertaking is amateurish in the extreme.

Editor, this would be laughable if the exercise were not so important and so costly. I wrote in my letter of 3rd September 2025 that the 1999 Commission, working under greater constraints, delivered a 300-page report in six months after wide consultation and expert engagement. By contrast, this body has been in place for over a year, supported by a Secretariat, funded by Parliament, and armed with the benefit of unfinished business from its predecessor. Yet it suspended meetings until after elections, in breach of both Article 119A of the Constitution and the Commission’s own Act.

This is not what Guyanese expect from a body entrusted with strengthening democracy, the limitations of which are exposed daily. A professionally managed Commission should have long provided a costed work plan, which I am certain the Ministry of Finance would have no difficulty funding. To hide behind “teething problems” is simply unacceptable.

Now that the matter has been brought to the fore, the CRC must stop hiding behind self-imposed restrictions. It must report to the National Assembly, publish a timetable, engage the public, and get on with its mandate. Anything less is a betrayal of the people and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

This culture that we can waste public funds because we have “oil money” must be nipped in the bud. The CRC must set the example of how public funds must be usefully spent, not why systems of accountability and transparency are needed, as in this case. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

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

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