Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

Yesterday’s (11 January 2026) Stabroek News carried a notice by Banks DIH Holdings Inc. convening its second Annual General Meeting for Saturday, 31 January 2026. The newspaper also reported that the company proposes to cap shareholder voting power at 15%.

No shareholder I have spoken to – including several members of staff at Ram & McRae – has received either the notice of meeting or the company’s annual report. An electronic copy of the annual report was, however, made available to me, having  been downloaded from the company’s subsidiary’s website.

That circumstance immediately raises questions concerning the adequacy of notice and the distribution of the annual report. The Companies Act sets out a clear statutory framework governing these matters, and compliance with both the Act and the company’s constituent documents is not optional.

While that matter is important, I treat it as secondary. The more serious concern lies in one of the proposed resolutions and, in particular, the proposed amendment to the company’s by-laws.

The Notice states that “Article 8 of the By-Laws” is to be amended to impose a 15% cap on shareholding and voting power, with votes above that threshold to be rendered invalid and not counted. The proposal further provides for the aggregation of interests held by spouses, children, trusts, controlled companies and persons said to be “acting in concert”, establishes a special register, appoints a “Special Registrar”, and ultimately empowers the directors to compel the disposal of shares deemed to be held in excess of the limit.

This proposal is misconceived, constitutionally unsound, legally impermissible, and violative of the most basic principles of company law and the fundamental nature of a public company. It seeks, through by-laws, to do what the law permits, in appropriate circumstances, only by amendment of the articles of incorporation by way of a special resolution.

To begin with, there is a fundamental conceptual error. There is no such thing in our Companies Act, or in company law generally, as an “Article of the By-Laws”. Articles are mandatory constitutional instruments; by-laws are separate and secondary, generally confined to internal administration. They cannot define, restrict, or extinguish proprietary rights. The reference to “Article 8 of the By-Laws” therefore reflects not loose drafting, but disappointingly, a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principles of company law and the hierarchy of corporate instruments established by the Act: first the Act, then the Articles, and only then the by-laws.

More fundamentally, a restriction on voting rights or on the effective enjoyment of shares is a restriction on property. Under the Companies Act, such restrictions must be expressly stated in the articles and should appear on the share certificate. They cannot be imposed, enlarged, or enforced through by-laws, however carefully they are worded. A by-law cannot lawfully invalidate rights attached to issued shares, nor can it set conditions to their disposal. Even unanimous shareholder approval cannot cure an illegality.

But beyond illegality, the proposal is objectionable in conception. It is not even-handed. While it aggregates certain relationships to enforce the 15% cap, it ignores economically aligned companies that together exercise significant influence. That selectivity exposes the proposal for what it is: a mechanism to entrench existing control by neutralising potential rival shareholders.

Restrictions of this nature belong to the private-company model and, in those limited circumstances, require amendment of the articles by special resolution. In a public company, their effect would be to destroy its public character by undermining the free and proportionate exercise of shareholder rights.

There are additional concerns with the structure of the proposed resolutions. The prudent course is either to withdraw the Notice and reconsider the proposal, in which case a new meeting would have to be convened, or, if it is satisfied that the statutory notice period has been properly complied with, to withdraw the impugned amendment and proceed with the remaining business on the agenda.

That would ensure and demonstrate compliance and respect for the law, for shareholders, and for the integrity of the company’s governance.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In announcing his appointment of members to the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) without consulting the Leader of the Opposition, President Ali explained that no consultation was possible because no such Leader had been elected since the elections, and that conditions in the education sector required immediate action. In substance, the President was asking the public to accept that constitutional compliance could be set aside in the name of urgency and the public good. That is a bitter pill to swallow.

The Constitution does not suggest or invite consultation with the Leader of the Opposition: it commands it. The constitutional office of LOO is not ceremonial, ornamental nor optional. It is intended to place a restraint on executive power in a winner-take-all constitutional system and to ensure that constitutional commissions operate independently and professionally, representative of the society rather than as proxies for the government of the day. By ignoring this constitutional mandate, the appointments to the TSC are not merely irregular; they are  constitutionally tainted – and dangerous.

On inspection, the President’s announcement rings hollow. As a senior member of the Bar observed in another context – that of the mysterious exit of the former acting Chancellor – procedural silence often conceals mischief. The prolonged failure to have a Leader of the Opposition elected raises identical concerns. This is not conjecture; it is a conclusion supported by deliberate inaction and disturbing, verifiable facts.

The elections are over. The recess has been taken. Parliament is sitting. A speaker has been elected. Opposi-tion members are present and calling for the election. The Speaker first disappears and then, acting with the political comfort of his sponsors strengthened by an enlarged government majority, blatantly refuses to facilitate the election. This is not inadvertence. It is obstruction. The vacancy advanced by President Ali to justify his constitutional violation, has been engineered, maintained, and is now being cynically invoked by the President.

What is being presented as constitutional impossibility is, in truth, constitutional engineering.

The President has attempted to cloak this manoeuvre in urgency, pointing to staffing pressures within the education system. He spoke of some 2,700 senior vacancies to be filled, including more than 800 newly created senior posts that did not previously exist. The suggestion was that events had overtaken constitutional formality. But the 2025 Estimates expose that claim. Education staffing spans Agency 40 and all ten regions. Its levels, scales and senior layers were known, budgeted for and deliberately restructured. These pressures were not sudden. They were foreseeable and, in significant part, policy-driven.

That makes the invocation of urgency disingenuous. Senior vacancies do not arise overnight; they build up over time and should have been addressed long before they became a constitutional excuse. The urgency claim also clashes with the Government’s own rhetoric. In his 2025 Budget Speech, the Minister responsible for Finance boasted of a transformative education agenda, and in the debate the Minister of Education praised the PPP/C’s record in the sector. Neither spoke of crisis. A government cannot celebrate success in one breath and plead constitutional necessity the next.

That contradiction matters, because this is not the first time “necessity” has been pressed into service to excuse constitutional shortcuts. In 2022, the appointment of Clifton Hicken as acting Commissioner of Police was defended on the basis that consultation with a Leader of the Opposition was impossible because none existed—an explanation accepted as exceptional at the time. Following the 2025 elections, the same rationale has been recycled, with Parliament once again allowed to remain incomplete so that constitutional consultation can be declared impossible.

The pattern extends beyond appointments. Nowhere is constitutional disregard more visible than in the administration of the Access to Information Act, enacted to give effect to the constitutional right to information. For years, the Commissioner of Information has failed to provide responses to requests or meaningful oversight, while reporting and enforcement have all but disappeared. This inaction has been tolerated rather than corrected—an omission made more troubling by the fact that the President himself holds the portfolio of Minister of Information. What is presented as bureaucratic failure is, in truth, constitutional neglect at the highest level.

Viewed together, these episodes point to a clear strategy by President Ali: constitutional constraints are not confronted but systematically weakened. When compliance is inconvenient (access to information), institutions are allowed to fail; when consultation is required (the election of the Leader of the Opposition), the conditions for it are deliberately left unmet; and when challenged, necessity is invoked after the fact (the Teaching Service Commission).

This is not governance; it is the erosion of the Constitution and the gutting of the rule of law.

The Teaching Service Commission appointments therefore raise more than a legal issue. They raise a democratic one. The failure to empower the opposition does more than narrow political inclusiveness; it contributes to what Nobel Prize–winning scholars describe in Why Nations Fail as the drift toward an extractive political system.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Mr. Hemdutt Kumar’s letter, “Removal of property tax is a victory for the wealthy and a betrayal of the poor” (Stabroek News, December 20, 2025), is theoretically sound and morally courageous. Predictably, critics will recycle the familiar claim that property tax is widely evaded and difficult to enforce. By that logic, Guyana should abandon almost every major tax. VAT fraud is endemic, income and corporation tax avoidance is widespread, and customs duties haemorrhage daily. Acknow-ledgment of weak enforcement is a call to strengthen administration – not a justification for capitulation.

Before looking at the history of the property tax which President Ali plans to scrap on individuals – ‘to axe the tax,’ as older heads might say – we need to note that “Individuals” in taxation includes professionals, unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and the majority of contractors. This is a huge body of taxpayers. And if the President does keep his promise, retaining it on companies will not have the simplistic effect assumed: all the “one man” and family companies have to do to avoid the remnants of the tax is to de-incorporate.  As was the case with the minimum tax.

Guyana once operated a harshly progressive tax system, with marginal income-tax rates reaching 70 percent, reinforced by the National Development Surcharge Levy (subsequently ruled as unconstitutional by the courts). Over time, that framework has been steadily dismantled. Dividends, then taxable, have been made tax-free, estate duty effectively abolished, capital gain is either exempted or taxed at a lower rate than tax on income. And now, property tax – the last meaningful levy on accumulated wealth – is to be removed.

Guyana’s current $40 million property-tax threshold is already generous by international standards. And in computing the tax payable, full deduction of debts and exempted certain assets is allowed. As Mr. Kumar points out, it already excludes the poor.

Other critics will point to countries that have abandoned wealth taxes. They need to tell the whole story. Where such taxes were removed, wealth concentration intensified. What the tax needs is reform, not abolition – least of all at a moment when oil-driven wealth concentration is accelerating. If the measure is implemented, $2 billion plus will go into the pockets of a not-so-new and rapidly expanding wealth class for whom ‘greed is good’ appears to be the governing mantra, a class that visibly includes ministers, their friends, and their families.

Without more, the repeal would also remove the obligation on taxpayers to itemise and declare their assets, leaving mandatory disclosure confined to income alone. And to make a bad situation worse, the country will bear those consequences through taxation, borrowings and drawdowns from the Natural Resource Fund.

I will be personal and direct. This repeal will save me millions of dollars annually. I do not need it. I did not ask for it, and it will make no difference to how I live. In none of the Budget submissions to which I have contributed over decades did I ever advocate for, or recommend, the removal of property tax. I hope the decision will be revisited. 

The Property Tax was one of the 1962 measures advocated by world famous welfare economist Dr. Nicholas Kaldor and warmly embraced by the late President Dr. Cheddi Jagan in the 1962 Budget. When the last remaining tax on accumulated wealth is removed, the signal is unmistakable. The burden shifts downward. To present this as “relief for all” is shallow and dishonest.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

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.