Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

There has been much debate – and concern – about the conditions which Commonwealth citizens must meet to qualify to vote in Guyana’s elections. This issue is addressed in Article 59 of the Constitution of Guyana which states:

“Subject to the provisions of article 159 (being registered as an elector), every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana.” Emphasis added.

Article 159 (3) goes on to provide in a roundabout, double negative way that a person shall not be so qualified unless he or she is a non-citizen Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year before the qualifying date. While 159 (3) not only appears to offer some clarification – and is by international standards quite liberal – the requirement of domicile qualifies the one-year residency which is not further defined. It does not say that residency means continuous, or if not continuous, for one year during the past X or Y years.

Unlike domicile, residency is often a practical rather than a strictly legal matter. Domicile on the other hand, is a very strict concept. A person is born with a domicile which is called his domicile of origin. That status can be changed to another domicile, known as a domicile of choice, but the conditions are onerous, as ruled in a UK tax case. In that case, a man born in Halifax, Canada in 1910 who served in the RAF from 1932 to 1959 married an English woman in 1946 and lived in England for decades but always intended to return to Canada if his wife died before him.

The tax authorities claimed that he had acquired a domicile of choice in England where he intended to reside indefinitely, if not perpetually. And that his intention to return to Canada if his wife died was too uncertain to negative the acquisition of domicile of choice. The Chancery Division of the High Court agreed with the tax authorities, but its decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which held that since the taxpayer intended to return to Canada if he survived his wife, he had not acquired an English domicile.

If we apply that principle to the Bajan who is a permanent employee with CARICOM in Guyana but who intends eventually to leave Guyana, that person would be resident in Guyana during that time but not domiciled and resident in Guyana. The same would be true of the Trinidadian or Indian or Bangladeshi construction or oil sector worker.

Even if such a person was mistakenly registered as a voter, the Constitution states that that person is not eligible to vote in our elections. If GECOM had improperly registered that person, it must take corrective action and ensure that the person does note vote. I cannot see how to allow an unqualified person to vote would be the lesser of two evils.

GECOM should address this matter to remove any lingering concerns citizens and the parties might have.    

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The PPP/C’s elections campaign has taken a nasty turn. One arm has leaned on disguised vote-buying and selective, distorted facts. Another has descended into language so coarse and abusive as to be unprintable. It is not confined to fringe voices. Leonard Craig, Joseph Hamilton, and even the Vice President himself have joined in.

Minister Vindhya Persaud, to her credit, spoke out against the conduct. But hers was a lone voice, quickly drowned by the noise of the campaign. The party or its women’s arm took no corrective action. GECOM, which is supposed to safeguard fairness, has remained silent. The Ethnic Relations Commission, which had only weeks ago promoted a code of conduct, also looked away.

What is even more striking is who has been asked to carry the harshest lines. It is not the party’s leadership, but campaigners given licence to say what the leaders will not. Their role is clear: to reach certain voters while proving their loyalty and securing their place. They are being used, while the leadership hides its hands.

The problem runs deeper. The PPP continues to shelter individuals facing serious criminal charges, including sexual misconduct. When vulgarity, falsehoods, and compromised candidates are tolerated, the damage goes beyond politics. It corrodes society itself. It lowers standards, teaches the young that indecency is strength, and normalises such behaviour.

Some argue these tactics come from desperation or fear of the opposition. But fear cannot justify filth. The contrast between them is clear: opposition parties, even the one most vilified, are running restrained campaigns, focusing on issues more than personalities. They have shown that an election can be fought without dragging the nation into the gutter.

This matters because once such behaviour is accepted, it is not easily reversed. Today it is vulgar language, tomorrow it may be worse – harming members of the opposition and their supporters. If standards collapse, elections will no longer be contests of ideas but battles of abuse. That is the road the PPP/C is taking the nation. 

This is not healthy politics. It is distortion and vulgarity, a degradation of our society and its standards. Decent voters should recoil – and show their disapproval come September 1.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I refer to Mr. Howard Bulkan’s letter “We are incensed at non-consultation and composition of GMSA’s press release” (SN August 4, 2025). Adverting to broad assurances about the “negotiations” that led to a five percentage points increase from 10% to 15% in the tariff imposed on Guyana’s exports into the USA, the entrepreneur and processed wood product exporter asks the simple but profound question about the reported negotiating process by Guyana: “At what levels? Between whom? “Over what conditions?”

The answer to these questions appears to lie in the limited scope of GMSA’s actual involvement in the process. While the association acknowledges that the wood sector – particularly companies like Bulkan’s – would be most affected by these tariffs, their engagement appears to have been confined to a meeting with VP Jagdeo rather than any direct participation in negotiations with US counterparts. As part of the GMSA – Government engagement, then head of the GMSA revealed in April of this year that “the government has asked [the GMSA] not to issue any public statements until a resolution is reached”. Without consultation or feedback, the GMSA agreed.

It appears that the Government of Guyana took a disjointed approach to the matter. As the Stabroek News of July 7 reported, President Ali engaged the CARICOM Heads; Guyana “was in advanced discussions with the US side”; and that “we are approaching this in partnership with the US.” Despite all the optimism expressed over each of these approaches, we ended up coming out worse than the 10% baseline which replaced Trump’s initial hypothetical (and flawed) 38%. None of these however, appears to have included the persons most directly affected, or seemingly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where we have not one but two ministers.

And what did the GMSA do about this failure? It issued a statement complimenting the Government! Of course, no consultation. It is not too late, and a meeting of affected and concerned members should now be convened. 

It appears that the leaders of the GMSA does not understand that it comprises a cross-section of Guyana society, and that its leaders have no authority to make what are no more than political statements in the name of the association. They are free to do so in their own names, thereby demonstrating their political preferences.

The Private Sector Commission has not been much better in this matter. As a corporate member, I persuaded the chair of the relevant PSC sub-committee to convene a meeting to address the tariff. One meeting was called. No follow-up, and no action of which I am aware. That is not an isolated issue. I have called unsuccessfully and repeatedly for a meeting of the corporate members, speaking with the group’s Convenor on more than one occasion. Results: None. 

Only the leaders of these bodies can say whether they seek these offices to satisfy their ego or promote their personal, business or political interests. They will therefore measure their effectiveness differently. What is certain, however, is that they have failed their members, like Mr. Bulkan, who join these organisations for the greater good and for proper representation, not for political theatre masquerading as advocacy.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

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

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