Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

The southern American expression “A hit dog will holler” was brought to Guyana in a coordinated response across the controlled media to my letter appearing last week under the caption `Presidency has been diminished by Mr Ali and he ought not to be re-elected’. Featuring media houses closely connected with the State and roleplaying by varying persona large and small, they have cast me in the memorable role of the Brave Little Tailor of “Seven at One Blow” fame, their combined failure allowing me to entertain the thought that Guyana has more unfeathered than feathered parrots, that we are one big soup kitchen. What emerges from their collective effort is not a defence of presidential conduct, but pseudo intellectualism and cowardly attacks from individuals whose supper depends on how often and how they mix up the pot.

Notably, not one respondent addressed the substantive issues I raised concerning President Ali’s conduct: concealing the expenses on Silica City, his vanity project; the documented WhatsApp evidence of a President engaging in communication on taxes; abandoning a public pledge to rebalance a most lopsided contract; the hidden Clyde & Company report; and the systematic undermining of constitutional and statutory bodies. Having documented numerous cases of tax concessions and benefits granted outside of the law, I can attest that such irregular practices are far from isolated incidents.

Most telling is President Ali’s refusal to establish a Commission of Inquiry to examine these matters – the one action that could definitively clear his name. And is there another way to describe a government that goes to court to challenge the award of a meagre pension equivalent to two hundred United States dollars per month to Zainul, a poor but dignified former carpenter while channeling hundreds of millions to friends and supporters than morally bankrupt and devoid of basic human decency?

To the first respondent, who refers to me as a friend, I am reminded of Caesar’s final words: “Et tu, Brute?” There is something particularly damning about betrayal couched in friendship’s language when all is done in the name of opportunism.  Regarding questions about electoral preferences, my answer is simple: NOTA – None of the Above. When choices are between persons who are seriously compromised, including a president who has diminished my country’s highest office for party and supporters’ profits, the principled position is rejection.

To another, your transformation from closet critic to fervent defender illustrates how lucrative appointments alter perspectives -a la Martin Carter. To anyone who thinks that embracing facts is engaging in extremities, and who possesses that rare and unprecedented wisdom to equate a simple accountant with billionaire and liberal democrat George Soros, I say, thanks but no thanks. To them both, I say, some knives cut three ways – toward enemy, friend and, ultimately, oneself. Their blade has found all three targets.

As for those respondents vying for bit parts (extras in the film business), they constitute the “et al” of the government dependency support cast whose feeble attacks are unworthy of any response, or respectability. Among these is one who substitutes fantasy and creativity – embellished with racist undertones –  for truth and accuracy, qualities identified with the fiction shelves in the library. 

But they all have one thing in common. Their very existence depends on the electoral success of their party, are probably otherwise unemployable, and therefore deserve some understanding, but not respect.

I reserve my final words for the President himself. As a practicing Muslim, he knows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) declared that “a word of truth before a ruler” is among the highest forms of jihad. Hurtful they might be, they are the unblemished truth while his defenders swear that the emperor’s clothes are made of the finest silk when honest men, women and children can see that he stands naked.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The presidency is the most sacred office in our Republic – its occupant sworn to uphold the Constitution and to serve all the people without fear or favour. Under President Ali, that office has been diminished – through evasion, manipulation, and a style of governance that rewards loyalty over merit, secrecy over transparency, and partisanship over national unity. It is a presidency that serves first the Party, then its leaders, its loyalists, and finally, their families and friends.

The recent exchanges between President Ali and Azharuddin Mohamed are a symptom of the reliability of his (Ali’s) words and his personal credibility. When confronted with documented evidence – via WhatsApp messages – that he facilitated the undervaluation for customs purposes of a high-end vehicle, Ali ridiculed the source. Pressed further, he hid behind the standard “I cannot recall,” blaming it on receiving too many messages. Ali, a borderline Generation X and Y leader – who wants to position Guyana as a global IT and AI hub – expects Guyanese to believe he does not know that WhatsApp messages do not overlap but scroll, that they do not disappear but are stored in the Cloud. Is that the best President Ali can do?

But this evolving posture of duplicity and convenience, denial and indifference, is part of President Ali’s playbook. He campaigned on a promise to renegotiate the 2016 oil agreement – by far the worst in modern oil deals. Once elected, “unable to recall”, he hid behind the doctrine of sanctity of contract. His Party’s pledge to investigate the circumstances into that agreement, has morphed into a refusal to release the Clyde & Company report on the agreement. Groveling to his new masters, he refuses to exercise the government’s rights to apply ringfencing, enforce relinquishment, and conduct serious audits. Audits are delayed, cost claims go unchallenged and published information by the oil companies are deceptive and misleading. Is that truly what the President thinks Guyanese deserve?

And most disturbingly, the government refuses to disclose who issues tax certificates to the oil companies – allegedly used to claim foreign tax credits in the United States. This refusal shields the process from public scrutiny and makes the state complicit, perhaps even an accessory, in facilitating offshore tax evasion. Worse still, the recently passed Oil Spill Liability Bill completely ignores the environmental risks to our neighbours – including one waiting for an excuse to pounce, should an offshore spill affect its territory. Not to mention the government’s complete dismissal of citizens’ right to have a say in the Bill. Is that the responsible and patriotic act, President Ali?

At home, when twenty children perished in state custody at Mahdia, President Ali appointed a commission of inquiry designed not to pursue the truth, but to control the result. The government also quietly bought off an Amerindian child victim of serious sexual misconduct. And then had the audacity to declare – as he did just two days ago – that he would dedicate his life to lifting the children of Guyana. Does our President not realise that this smells of hypocrisy?  

His commitment to the administration of justice is no less duplicitous. His long and oft-repeated promise to address the confirmation of the Chancellor and Chief Justice is as clear a signal as any that judicial independence remains hostage to political expediency and subject to retribution and weaponisation. His tolerance for unprincipled and even lawless conduct is equally evident. His government openly rewards those who cross the floor and punishes those who dissent. The case of Dr. Tara Kissoon – who unlawfully overstayed her time in the National Assembly and was warmly welcomed into the PPP – is further evidence of the culture of reward for improper conduct. President did the same with Charrandass Persaud, who betrayed the APNU+AFC Government and was rewarded by Ali with a top-level diplomatic posting.

He is comfortable using public funds to pay officials not for what they do, but for what they are willing not to do. The Commissions of Information, Public Procurement, and Integrity are classic examples – offices reduced to sinecures, betraying their constitutional mandates and the public trust. Instead of embracing the rule of law, the President is content to reward donors of dark money to his campaign coffers, refusing to consider any form of campaign finance reform. His PPP/C operates entirely outside of any legal framework and is almost certainly in violation of anti-money laundering rules – as do the Opposition parties. In ignoble acts, he is at one with the opposition.

The structure of his administration is built not on law, but on favours and fear –  a deliberate strategy of reward and punishment. In his distorted economic order, the poor survive on occasional handouts of $100,000, while those with connections benefit to the tune of millions – through contracts, tax concessions and sweetheart deals. One example close to him is the Silica City project, which is not accounted for or disclosed anywhere in the national Budget or the public records. The project is run by the Ministry of Housing, of which he was once Minister and which has, since then, been mired in allegations of corruption. Let us not repeat the past.

The public has also taken note of the now-revealed relationship between President Ali and businessman Mohamed. But what began as concern over a personal association has evolved into something deeper. The episode exposed a culture of proximity and privilege -where access to the President silences scrutiny, stifles competition, and reaffirms that in Guyana, political interests and connections trump transparency. Through all this, the state-funded media -which falls under President Ali – remains closed to opposition, independent and civil society voices. Citizens are denied a platform for response, even as they fund the very institutions that attack and exclude them.

Perhaps most revealing is that President Ali was quite prepared to accept Mohamed’s largess until Mohamed announced political ambitions – exposing the transactional nature of Ali’s associations and improper motives.  

President Ali’s actions constitute a grave betrayal of the Guyanese public who gave him the privilege of being their leader. When concerns were raised over the nature and speed of his academic qualifications, the public chose to look past them. And when the APNU+AFC coalition attempted to subvert the electoral process in 2020, Guyanese of all backgrounds defended Ali’s constitutional right to assume office. That trust has been repaid with secrecy, arrogance, betrayal, and deception.

In an enlightened country driven by truth, principle and integrity, that betrayal should be cause for his resignation. By the same yardstick, he ought not to be re-elected. Unfortunately, the several persons I spoke with this past week have all expressed pessimism about the future of the country. September 1 will tell us whether those fears are well founded.

Yours faithfully, Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I strongly support Attorney-at-Law Melinda Janki’s appeal to President Irfaan Ali, as reported in yesterday’s Stabroek News, not to give presidential assent to the rushed Oil Pollution Prevention, Pre-paredness, Response and Responsibility Bill.

Ms. Janki, who regularly provides high-value public service to Guyana, provided a strong case on why the legislation contravenes Guyana’s international legal obligations and violates multiple constitutional provisions, particularly Article 149J. As she rightly pointed out, a catastrophic oil spill would result in tens of billions of dollars in costs.

The danger in this legislation is that like the 2016 Agreement, we can be walking into an existential trap of our own making. The oil companies have shown that they are not averse to shifting any costs and liabilities to Guyana, given half a chance. Already, we are bound by a fateful Stability Clause that runs until 2056, which states that we can improve terms for the oil companies, but if we attempt to reduce their economic benefits, they could take us to arbitration or settle with local officials.

Melinda’s call follows calls for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, and we know where that went. Speaker after speaker from the Government side made several outlandish statements that hardly inspired confidence. Yet, after the political theatre and the customary “buse-out” of the opposition, “who did not have the intelligence to read and understand the Bill”, the Speaker farcically called for a vote on the entire Bill.

The Bill creates a regulatory façade without providing the necessary scientific capacity, independent verification mechanisms, or dedicated funding required for effective implementation. As one critic noted, it is “form without substance.”

I join Ms. Janki in calling for President Ali to withhold his assent to this dangerously flawed legislation. However, I would advise her not to hold her breath waiting for a response – the President appears too busy to respond to citizens, even when the matter falls directly within his own portfolio, such as the Commis-sioner of Information.

I am yet to see what it would take for the President to operate respectfully with citizens and in the broader interest of the country.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I write to make an urgent appeal to the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister regarding the Oil Pollution Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Responsibility Bill 2025, tabled by the Prime Minister last Friday.

This legislation represents one of the most critical environmental and economic bills ever presented to our Parliament. The reliance of the national economy on a single sector or company has never before been greater – drawings from the NRF into the Consolidated Fund account for 50% of 2025 revenues. And that is only part of the total direct revenue from the oil-producing companies. Clearly, then, any oil spill could have enormous consequences: the emphasis should be on prevention rather than cleaning up.  That is what makes this Bill so important.

 My assessment of the Bill is that it has technical deficiencies and legal ambiguities that could undermine its effectiveness. For example, clause 21 is framed in overly broad language that may inadvertently invalidate standard parent company guarantees essential to international oil operations. The Bill also lacks specific technical standards for response capabilities, relying on undefined terms like “adequate response.” Most concerning, it provides no dedicated funding mechanism for Commission operations, effectively requiring taxpayers to subsidise preparedness for corporate environmental risks.

I therefore appeal to our leaders to:

Immediately refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Establish clear terms of reference for a comprehensive technical review.

Allow adequate time for stakeholder consultation and expert input.

Ensure that the Committee reports back with amendments before the Bill is returned to the National Assembly.

While I understand the urgency to establish regulatory frameworks, hasty passage of deficient legislation serves no one’s interests. We have seen, in the case of the Natural Resource Fund Act, the detrimental effects of rushing through critical legislation without adequate consultation and participation. The stakes are too high for anything less than the best efforts of the National Assembly and all Guyanese.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I write to share the latest information on Guyana’s dismal state of transparency and right to information.  On April 14, 2025, on behalf of a group of civil society organisations and individuals, I wrote the President, who holds the Portfolio for Information, requesting a meeting regarding the Office of the Commissioner of Information’s failures: no mandatory annual reports tabled, unanswered public information requests, and erosion of citizens’ constitutional right to information. A briefing note accompanied the letter.

There was no response to the letter, and therefore no meeting. To deny citizens the courtesy of a response is bad enough. To effectively refuse to discuss an issue of which you hold portfolio responsibility, and which is the oxygen of democracy and the essence of good governance, does a disservice to the Presi-dent’s Office. 

On 23rd April 2025, I sent a pre-action letter to Mr. Charles Ramson Snr., Commissioner of Information and the Minister of Natural Resources, reminding them of long-outstanding requests for information and indicating my intention to approach the Courts if they still refused my request. I received a response from Mr. Ramson that was dismissive, characterising my concerns as “transparently relentless, brazen alignment with the agenda-driven, political media malcontents.” He mocked citizens’ rights as a “self-induced myth of a constitutional right to information” and my concerns as “manicured spasms of delusional concern, opportunistic at best, but deceptively disruptive at worst.”

Rather than address his statutory failures, Ramson threatens that his office “will strenuously defend on its behalf, any mischievously contrived litigation, however authored” – an apparent attempt to intimidate citizens exercising their legal rights.

The irony is stark. This Office was established to facilitate the enjoyment of several constitutional rights, guaranteeing inclusive democracy and the right to information. Instead, it consumes tens of millions in public funds while producing nothing of value. It is highly disappointing that the President condones this flagrant mockery of transparency by his silence.

Having exhausted all reasonable avenues, I will shortly initiate legal proceedings to obtain the information I sought. The rule of law must be upheld, particularly by those sworn to administer it. Our group will soon resume its public campaign to obtain our rights.

I call on my fellow Guyanese to follow the example of a Trinidadian who, a couple of years ago, was confronted with a denial of access to information and who successfully pursued his case all the way to the Privy Council. I wonder whether the Law Lords silently asked themselves: what a backward culture that requires its citizens to resort to such extreme action.  

I am providing copies of all three letters referenced in this correspondence for transparency and public interest. They allow the public to judge the inadequacies of the official attitude and responses.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram