Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

Two weeks ago, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (PC), the highest court of Trinidad and Tobago, handed down a ruling that affects the entire Region. The decision in Methanex Corporation v The Board of Inland Revenue of Trinidad and Tobago [2024] UKPC 6, raises difficult but long overdue questions about the weaknesses of CARICOM’s legal architecture, the aging 1994 CARICOM Double Tax-ation Agreement (the Agreement), and the troubling consequences of maintaining a bifurcated system of final appellate courts within the region.

At the heart of the case was a dispute between Trinidad and Tobago’s tax authorities and Methanex, a wholly owned Canadian-controlled enterprise that has routed its Carib-bean operations through a subsidiary incorporated in Barbados. Methanex claimed benefits under the 1994 Agreement, arguing that it was a resident of a CARICOM member state (Barbados) and therefore entitled to relief under the treaty. 

The Privy Council, taking a literal and formalistic reading of the treaty’s text, agreed. It ruled that the absence of a Limitation on Benefits clause, a principal purpose test, or any economic substance requirement meant that Methanex was entitled to treaty benefits. In doing so, it rejected a more modern, progressive purposive interpretation offered by the Trinidadian courts below, which had urged a reading of the Agreement in line with its objective of promoting regional economic integration.

While the ruling is legally defensible under the Agreement’s text, it reveals a deeper failure –  not of the judiciary or the legal profession, but of regional governance. The 1994 Agreement replaced a 1973 agreement that was more narrowly drawn and intended to operate as a closed treaty, available only to those genuinely resident and operating within the region. In contrast, the 1994 Agreement is now shown to function effectively as an open treaty, accessible to any person or entity formally subject to tax in a CARICOM member state, even if that connection is nominal or commercially artificial.

The Agreement has remained untouched for thirty-one years des-pite repeated warnings about its deficiencies. It lacks some of the modern safeguards in international tax treaties. Yet efforts to revise it have been met with institutional lethargy. CARICOM’s leadership has failed to initiate reform, and its economic affairs committees have not acted. Methanex has exposed and exploited the region’s tax base. Suriname is right not to subscribe to the Agree-ment in its present form.

The case is ripe with painful irony. It was brought by Trinidad and Tobago, which continues to reject the appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Methanex, by contrast, is incorporated in Barbados, which has embraced the CCJ. Yet, it is Trinidad’s preferred final court, the Privy Council, whose ruling will most benefit foreign-controlled companies seeking tax advantages at the entire region’s expense – including Trinidad’s. Most directly, the Privy Council overruled Trinidad’s Tax Court and its Court of Appeal. 

This contradiction extends to legal principles and the Privy Council as well. In 1976, in the Jamaican case, popularly referred to as Seramco, the PC embraced substance over form, a philosophy adopted later by the House of Lords in the famous Ramsay case. That is also Guyana’s approach, founded in separate judgments handed down by temporary Justices of Appeal Rafiq Khan and Dr. Arif Bulkan. In fact, substance over form has long been part of Guyana’s Income Tax Act (section 74). A further irony is that the Methanex decision does not bind the UK, where the substance over form principle was formally adopted in a landmark House of Lords case. 

Methanex signals a return to formalism, privileging nominal residence over commercial reality. The spirit of Seramco survives in theory but has been undermined in practice. 

Some may argue that companies like Methanex bring investment and employment to the region, and that legal certainty is essential. That is true. However, the issue is not whether tax treaties should exist or whether international companies are welcome. It is whether a multilateral regional treaty, explicitly intended to foster intra-regional economic integration, trade and investment, should be used to deliver tax advantages to third-country multinationals with no substantial commitment to the region’s development.

Indeed, in jurisdictions like Guyana and Barbados, Canadian investors are already covered by bilateral treaties with Canada. The availability of the CARICOM treaty as an additional option means they can choose whichever arrangement yields the most favourable tax outcome, effectively converting a regional integration instrument into a platform for treaty shopping.

If individual CARICOM states wish to offer tax relief to non-CARICOM jurisdictions, they can do so through bilateral treaties. That is a sovereign prerogative. But it is wholly inappropriate to use a regional framework designed for unity and shared prosperity as a tool of convenience for external actors. In this sense, the Methanex decision is not just about one company’s tax status. It is about the erosion of regionalism itself.

We are often told that treaty reform in CARICOM is difficult because it requires the elusive unanimity. But what we now have is unanimity of exposure. The Agreement makes every CARICOM state vulnerable to treaty shopping, base erosion, and the loss of tax revenues meant to fund public services and development goals.

CARICOM countries must respond to this decision. The 1994 CARICOM Agreement must be revised or supplemented by protocols that insert modern anti-abuse clauses. The CARICOM Secretariat must take the lead, and those states that support the CCJ must continue pressing for judicial coherence. But above all, we must restore the principle that our regional instruments serve regional interests.

We cannot afford two final courts, two tax philosophies, and one treaty that serves neither. The price of disunity is being paid in revenue lost, sovereignty diminished, and a regional project undermined by its own contradictions.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I express heartfelt condolences to the parents and other loved ones of 11-year-old Adriana Younge, whose tragic and suspicious death has plunged our nation into grief and turmoil. The pain and anger felt by all Guyanese – not only parents and family members – are real. The public outrage over the police’s handling of this matter is legitimate. But violence, destruction and attacks on innocent people are not justice.  They are wounds upon an already hurting nation.

We cannot demand accountability and responsibility from our law enforcement agencies while engaging in lawless behaviour ourselves. Nothing good comes from violence against fellow Guyanese. We must respect the law and uphold peace and order. Only then can we create the conditions for real change and true justice.

I have witnessed cycles of violence in almost every decade since the 1960s. Core issues like a constitutional autocracy require fundamental changes, not band-aids that legitimise poor governance, lack of accountability, bribery and corruption, and the entrenchment of a narrow class. Completely unmindful that the death of Adriana is only the latest in a series of disturbing acts of gender-based violence, the Speaker of the National Assembly was reported on Monday to have summarily blocked debate on a motion intended to establish an alert system for missing children.

This decision is both deeply disappointing and profoundly troubling in the current climate. It also recalls other unresolved atrocities, including the horrific sexual abuse of a child from one of our minority communities. In that case, the court cleared the suspect, a minister of government no less, for lack of evidence. It is widely believed that the charge against the suspected perpetrator was dismissed following a reported financial settlement with the victim’s family.

Calls for action against pervasive corruption are met with excuses and more corruption. Ruling parties, their families, friends and favourites operate and are enriched as though they are above the law. The parliamentary system is abused; constitutional and public bodies are compromised and controlled; the election system is broken, and the regional system designed to foster democracy is tightly controlled from the centre.

White-collar crime, including tax evasion and favouritism, is now part of the governance system. The rich have become mega-rich, while the rest of society remains impoverished.   At the same time, poorer areas like Buxton, which I visited two weeks ago, remain deplorable.

The vice president who cynically circumvents the constitutional term limit holds a weekly press conference marked by divisive and inflammatory language, mocking and insulting individuals who dare to raise questions. This pattern of behaviour contributes to further polarising our society and normalising its own form of violence.

Every initiative by civil society that does not align with the government is dismissed as politically motivated and opposition-driven. The government seeks to dominate every inch of political space and every iota of public opinion, leaving little room for genuine dialogue and reform.

Governments act as if election victory, however narrow, confers ownership of the nation’s resources. No, they impose responsibility and a duty to legally, transparently and accountably manage the country’s resources to benefit all citizens, not half-Guyana.

Our constitutional bodies must function independently and professionally, serving the people of Guyana – not those who appoint them. The Constitution Reform Commission must come out from under its shell and carry out its duties. The Public Procurement Commission must ensure contracts are awarded transparently and do something about the pervasive and credible reports of bribery and corruption. The Integrity Commission must uphold ethical governance. Bodies like GECOM, the FIU, SOCU, the DPP, the Commission of Information the Audit and yes, the Police Force, must fulfill their mandates.

Our opposition parties have not helped either. They have failed to provide leadership, action, energy and effort. As challenging as their task is, they can do much more to offer hope and to expose the injustices so evident around us.   

There is no reason why women and children must go through the trauma of violence and deaths as if it is so normal. Or why our society should be riven with widespread violence every decade or so. Let us not fail Adriana twice.

Rest In Peace, Adriana. 

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In today’s sitting of the National Assembly, the Minister of Parlia-mentary Affairs and Governance will table the Ethnic Relations Commis-sion’s audited financial statements for the years ended 31st December 2015 to 2023. This tabling is wrong in several respects.

The ERC was established under the Constitution. Article 212 E requires it to submit to the Speaker of the National Assembly an annual report on the Commission’s activities for the preceding year. That report must then be laid before the National Assembly as soon as practical after the end of the year. The ERC must also prepare and publish an executive summary of its annual report and every special report in widely accessible media within forty-five days of submitting such a special report to the National Assembly.

The spectacle the nation is about to witness is ten years late, and incomplete. Audited financial statements are part of, not a substitute for, the required report or the executive summary. It is incredible, unacceptable, and disgraceful that successive Speakers of the National Assembly – Raphael Trotman and Manzoor Nadir – have been so delinquent in reminding Shaikh Moeenul Hack, Chair-man, and Gomin Comacho, CEO, of their egregious violation of the Constitution and the principle of good governance.

What is troubling is that neither the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee nor the Auditor General has flagged this shocking violation. It raises questions about the management and usefulness of Parliament, which was allocated over $2 Bn, including statutory expenditures, in 2025, and of the Clerk of the National Assembly, whose performance seems to match that of the National Assembly.

The information on the National Assembly website is so outdated that it is useless, violating the Access to Information Act. No one can hold anyone else accountable when every relevant person and agency is derelict in their duties. And of course, fitness, competence and professionalism have long been cast aside as a requirement for public service.

But this in no way exonerates the Chairman, CEO, and members of the ERC from their gross negligence, dereliction of duty, and violation of oath. It is unthinkable that Mr. Shaikh Hack does not know the relevant provisions of the Constitution under which he is appointed. He is paid over $400,000 monthly plus attractive benefits as the part-time chairman of a barely functioning Commission. As a respected religious leader who has violated the sacred oath to observe the Constitution of Guyana, he should do the decent thing and resign.

When these audited financial statements are laid before the National Assembly, the Speaker should demand an undertaking from the Minister that the constitutionally required reports will be tabled within 21 days, along with a credible explanation for the non-compliance.

Editor, I want to point out that the ERC is not alone in not submitting reports. This is true of other bodies like the Demerara Harbour Bridge and the Central Housing and Planning Authority, which perform essential functions and handle billions of public funds but fail to prepare or publish annual reports.

I have called before: any government agency that fails to meet its basic reporting obligations under the Constitution and the law should not receive public funding until it demonstrates proper accountability.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Letter by Charles Ramson Snr. (Stabroek News 24 -4-25 refers.)

It defies all logic – common sense, even – that Charles Ramson Snr., a former Court of Appeal judge, cannot grasp one of the most elementary functions of his office: to gather and provide the very information that enables the tabling of the annual Report in the National Assembly on the work of the Commissioner of Information.

Contrary to his mistaken belief, he is not a passive bystander in this process. His office must actively compile, organise and submit the necessary data for the annual report. If the President’s office is to produce a report, it can only do so if Ramson first does his job. Worse yet, as the statutory authority on access to information, he should be drafting the report himself, not waiting for the President’s office to do the work he was appointed (and paid millions) to perform.

That a former judge and Attorney General – someone who should understand statutory obligations better than most – fails to make this elementary connection is disturbing. It suggests either  deliberate obstruction or staggering incompetence, neither of which is acceptable for an office meant to safeguard democracy.

Ramson’s continuing failures and stubborn refusal to perform his duties are not just negligence and arrogance but a gross dereliction of duty. His failure shows that he is unfit to understand, let alone perform, the Commissioner of Information’s most basic responsibilities and functions. It seems irrational that the holder of the country’s second highest award is proud of a record of no information and no report tabled.

It is not enough that he resigns – he should be fired for non-performance, conflict of interest, obstruction to democracy and an embarrassment to the country’s image and reputation. 

Ramson can then re-convert the Office of the Commission of Information to his private residence. There he will be free to wallow in his thessaurian world of formal and complete retirement with full justification for doing nothing. By his measure, any replacement will provide value for money and citizens’ constitutional right to information. 

That is what the protests outside his residence/office were about.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I write to clarify the statement attributed to former President Donald Ramotar in your story “Gov’t does not intervene in work of Commissioner of Information – President,” which appeared in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. This is what Mr. Ramotar is quoted to have said on being contacted by the Sunday Stabroek: “I appointed him [Charles Ramson, Snr.] on the insistence of the Opposition because they put in the constitution this aspect of Access to Information,” and that [like the current President], “he too was not aware of protests against Ramson.”

Editor, it is against my personal values to share private conversations publicly, and I do so now only because a constitutional matter of public interest is at stake. When public figures make statements that directly contradict the truth, personal preferences must give way to broader interests.

I speak with Mr. Ramotar several times per week, sharing views on international and national matters and about our respective activities and can categorically state that the protests over the past three weeks have been a regular topic of our conversations. In the latter regard, Mr. Ramotar specifically explained the origin of the Access to Information Act, stating that pressure from the diplomatic community forced the matter to the Cabinet and that it was Dr. Roger Luncheon, then Head of the Presidential Secretariat, who put forward Ramson’s name, without objection from anyone present.

As an aside, the Access to Information Act was to give effect to Article 146 of our Constitution. It speaks volumes that the Former President admitted to me that the Act was introduced at the behest of the international community. This admission leads me to infer why the current administration is so dismissive of civil society’s call for the Government to act on the gross failure over several years of the Commissioner of Information, Mr. Ramson, to do his job. 

This direct contradiction between what Mr. Ramotar stated privately in our conversations and what he has now claimed publicly raises disturbing questions about the credibility, integrity and moral values of those who serve at every level of government.

The importance of truthfulness from presidents, vice presidents, ministers, heads of government agencies, and other government functionaries cannot be overstated. The higher we go, the greater the duty. Public trust in our institutions depends fundamentally on the honesty and integrity of those who lead them. When public figures deliberately misrepresent facts, they undermine the very foundation of public confidence in our democratic system, erode institutional credibility, damaging the social contract between government and citizens.

If we are to build and maintain trust between the government and citizens, statements made by current and former officials must reflect the truth, not convenient narratives that shift with the political winds.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram