Category: Letters to the editor

Yesterday, Nathan Craig, a frail 80-year-old Linden man, barely able to stand, let alone walk, was brought into our office. Craig’s appeal for his pension was heard fourteen years after it was lodged in 2010. No sooner had he won, than the heartless NIS lodged an appeal to a non-existent Commissioner of National Insurance.

Here we have Mr. Craig, penniless and fragile, deprived of his rights by an NIS whose strategy is to wait pensioners out. His story is not dissimilar to Zainul’s, the carpenter whose success in court angered the NIS, the AG and the Government, all of whom have left him out to dry. Zainul is paying the price for his less than honest employer, the NIS and the AG’s chambers. Craig is paying the price for the failure of the President to perform the simple task of appointing the Commissioner of National Insurance and the refusal of the NIS to follow the law laid down in an earlier judgment of the Chief Justice.  

The whole purpose of the NIS was to provide financial relief for the elderly through the contributions of the workers and their employers. The duty of the NIS was to oversee the employers and to maintain accurate records of contributions. Partly because of political control, poor management and its failure to carry out its statutory functions, the NIS has caused grief and suffering to probably tens of thousands of contributors, many of whom departed this world without justice. 

For one thing: it is not currently for want of money. The NIS’ financial fortunes began to rise with the influx of highly paid persons in the expanding economy. The injection of the $10 Bn was like a bonus and could have been used to address many of the Scheme’s more fundamental problems. Instead, the staff of the NIS are bullying and blackmailing aggrieved persons into giving up their right to a pension in exchange for a one-off grant. 

An ailing octogenarian (Craig) must now wait for the appointment of a Commissioner of National Insurance for the NIS appeal to be heard! Zainul, a septuagenarian, has to wait for the opportunity to climb those high court stairs again. And let us not forget Julia Clarke who may have to wait another six months for the NIS to respond to her lawyer’s letter. 

That is the sad state of our NIS.

Thank you, President Ali.

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The PNC is dead. Long live the PNC. As Hoyte did in 1992, Aubrey Norton repeated the show of its party’s resilience on Sunday evening with a huge turnout at its 2025 elections campaign launch at the Square of the Revolution. It must trouble the PPP/C that for all its confidence from endorsements from recent members of the APNU/PNC, from several cash grants with promises of more to come, from the convenient attendance of tens of thousands of part-time workers at its events, and the demonising of David Hinds, that the PNC-R, or APNU could attract such a crowd.   

Regardless of what many thought and still do of Norton, he is the leader of a huge segment of the population that the PPP/C sees as a commodity open to transaction, provided they stay in their place. Treat Norton with disrespect and you disrespect all the 217,920 persons who voted for the PNC and their young children who have now reached voting age. The word is that Norton has his own autocratic inclination but one thing for sure, the Government will not be run from Congress Place.  

Norton’s choice of Juretha Fernandes, a young Amerindian woman from Bartica, the holder of a BSc in Economics and MSc in Public Administration as his prime ministerial candidate, is an inspired choice for many reasons – gender, ethnicity, substance, competence, independence and integrity. By contrast, PM Mark Phillips is appointed with an unmountable dark-tinted glass ceiling placed before him, with its own shade of racism. In fact, even as the constitutionally prescribed first Vice President, the PM struggles to make it into the inner cabinet of five.  

Fernandes immediately placed on the front burner the relentless rise in the cost of living over the past four years to which the Government’s only response were periodic cash grants rather than adequate management. It appears that the PPP/C fails to realise that without other measures, cash grants drive the cost of living higher still. 

It was also good to hear that the Ticket will act on the Access to Information Act, a fundamental pillar of democracy and good governance, another guardrail torn down by the PPP/C. Addressing this pillar will make the society more open, more democratic and more vibrant.

The Ticket made some expansive promises on Sunday night, premised on higher petroleum revenues. The Ticket will need to rely on more than production. Guyanese need to hear from Norton and Fernandes whether they are committed to holding a commission of inquiry into the 2016 Agreement as a prelude to its renegotiation.

The PPP/C might be glad that the two main speakers did not raise the issue of the 2016 Agreement for which Bharrat Jagdeo before the PPP/C took office in 2020 had used the words “they sold us out”. The only thing that has changed is that Jagdeo has gone from being a critic of the Agreement, which lasts until the late 2050’s, to being an enabler. Yet, Exxon, Hess and CNOOC have begun taking money out of Guyana. Jagdeo and Ali no longer seem to care that the so-called profit share from oil is barely enough to pay the very taxes owed by the oil companies themselves, and to build the roads and infrastructure needed for those same companies to extract our most precious economic asset.

However, the PPP/C might care to respond to the Launch, it showed that Norton leads a party and a Ticket that has the capacity to organise, mobilise and galvanise its support base. The consolidation of those constituencies represented by Norton, Fernandes, Hinds and others will pose a serious headache for the PPP/C. It might even have to wonder about the point about all those handouts, cash grants and ribbons cutting.  

Then it faces a challenge from Azruddin Mohammed, scion of a wealthy Muslim family. From financier to political competitor and rival for the presidency, young Mohammed has created a buzz – which maybe only Walter Rodney ever matched – potentially shaving votes from two historically solid PPP constituencies disillusioned by the status quo – the Muslims and the Amerindians. 

That is a headache which the PPP can ill afford. Its response in having its supporters and part-time workers disrupt Mohamed’s meetings in the presence of an unresponsive Police is counter-productive and dangerous. The last thing Guyana needs now is even the suspicion implicating the PPP/C in political violence, such as the Mon Repos market incident.

As other issues regarding the PPP/C’s management are placed under the microscope, such corruption, the gas to energy project, its treatment of NIS retirees, and landowners whose property has been acquired at well below market price, the political tide will ebb and flow.

In Guyana we always think that our politics is unique. Yet, the words of former British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson that “A week is a long time in politics”, seem to apply with dramatic force to Guyana. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Christopher Ram Responds to AG Nandlall’s unsubstantiated allegation

I recently viewed a video of Attorney General Anil Nandlall (AG) responding to a column written by Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, SC, who heads Cameron and Shepherd, arguably Guyana’s oldest law firm. I retained Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, the son of Ralph Ramkarran, as my attorney to challenge Article 160 (2) (a) of Guyana’s Constitution, which I believe permits individuals to contest parliamentary elections in geographical constituencies. Readers might recall that Kamal was also my Counsel — right up to the CCJ – in the case he successfully filed over the 2018 no-confidence motion in the National Assembly.

In the video, the AG made the grave allegation that Mr. Ramkarran Senior’s column was “an attempt by him to distance his law firm from a statement that I (AG) made… from a contention that I (AG) advanced.” The AG went on: “And the contention that I advanced was that based upon the information that I have received, information that I have no reason to doubt, the legal proceedings are being financed by a political presidential aspirant.”

After reviewing the video, I contacted the AG to inform him that his allegation about the financing of the proceedings was false and challenged him to provide us with the information or issue a retraction and apology. The AG subsequently issued what can only be described as a non-statement. Rather than providing evidence or retracting his defamatory claims, he now attempts to justify his conduct by claiming he was merely “sharing information already being publicly peddled” and that such information was “published on social media.”

His feeble justification raises even more serious concerns. If he is basing official statements on unverified social media posts and rumors, this speaks to a fundamental failure in his duties as the nation’s chief legal officer. Social media gossip and speculation do not constitute the reliable information he initially claimed to possess. It is profoundly disappointing that our nation’s chief legal officer would conduct himself in this reckless manner. His refusal to accept accountability when challenged sets a dangerous example that undermines the integrity of his office and erodes public confidence in our legal institutions.

I also take this opportunity to apologise to Ralph and Kamal Ramkarran and their families for the embarrassment and pain that the AG’s wild accusations and his subsequent refusal to retract them would have caused. The best vindication is honour, truth and justice. It will come their way.

Christopher Ram

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