Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

Constitutional Reform Commission must stop hiding behind self-imposed restrictions

Dear Editor,

I welcome the openness with which retired Chancellor Carl Singh has sought to explain the paralysis of the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC). Unfortunately, the explanations sound less like accountability and more like excuses.

By lamenting the delays in obtaining fans and paper, Chancellor Singh’s comments fail to reflect the seriousness of a Commission established pursuant to a constitutional mandate. Each commissioner is paid some $200,000 per month, for what has so far amounted to the occasional meeting. The Chair, no doubt, enjoys a substantial package. Are we to believe that this generous remuneration is justified by “orientation” sessions and tutorials on the Constitution? The University of Guyana runs an entire semester on constitutional law, and that is only part of the subject. If the CRC, populated by lawyers, ministers, and professionals, truly needs basic instruction before starting its work, then the undertaking is amateurish in the extreme.

Editor, this would be laughable if the exercise were not so important and so costly. I wrote in my letter of 3rd September 2025 that the 1999 Commission, working under greater constraints, delivered a 300-page report in six months after wide consultation and expert engagement. By contrast, this body has been in place for over a year, supported by a Secretariat, funded by Parliament, and armed with the benefit of unfinished business from its predecessor. Yet it suspended meetings until after elections, in breach of both Article 119A of the Constitution and the Commission’s own Act.

This is not what Guyanese expect from a body entrusted with strengthening democracy, the limitations of which are exposed daily. A professionally managed Commission should have long provided a costed work plan, which I am certain the Ministry of Finance would have no difficulty funding. To hide behind “teething problems” is simply unacceptable.

Now that the matter has been brought to the fore, the CRC must stop hiding behind self-imposed restrictions. It must report to the National Assembly, publish a timetable, engage the public, and get on with its mandate. Anything less is a betrayal of the people and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

This culture that we can waste public funds because we have “oil money” must be nipped in the bud. The CRC must set the example of how public funds must be usefully spent, not why systems of accountability and transparency are needed, as in this case. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

Book Review: A landmark chronicle of Guyana’s accounting profession

Lal Balkaran’s History of Accounting & Auditing in Guyana: Including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana, Other Agencies, and Some Coverage of the Caribbean, 1800–2024 is a pioneering work. For more than two centuries, accounting and auditing shaped the way Guyana’s businesses, plantations, and public institutions operated, yet until now no one had attempted to tell their story in a comprehensive way. This book fills that gap.

At over 330 pages, it traces the profession from the Dutch and British colonial systems of bookkeeping, through independence and the turbulence of the 1970s and 1980s, into the present oil-driven era. Balkaran recounts the dominance of expatriate accountants, the rise of firms such as Bookers, and the eventual emergence of Guyanese practitioners. He recalls the contribution of pioneers like A.M.S. Barcellos, the first Guyanese to qualify as an ACCA, and E.A. Adams, the first East Indian in Guyana to do so, alongside notables including Yesu Persaud, Willie Stoll and Jack Alli.

The book is strong in its treatment of institutions but also generous to individuals. Alongside detailed accounts of ministries, revenue authorities, and audit offices, Balkaran acknowledges the contributions of those who shaped the field. By recording their achievements, he preserves the personal dimension of the profession and ensures that such achievements are recorded for posterity.

Women too receive overdue attention. The book highlights the first women to qualify as chartered secretaries and accountants, and those who later broke through to senior professional roles and partnerships. By placing these achievements in a global context, he shows that Guyanese women were part of a wider struggle for recognition in male-dominated professions.

The book is also a valuable record of institutions: the Audit Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Bank of Guyana, the Guyana Revenue Authority, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana. Each is carefully chronicled with lists of officeholders, statutes, and milestones. More than fifty pages of appendices supply rare details, including reproductions of audit certificates and economic timelines. For researchers or students, these are priceless.

The strengths of the book are clear. It is comprehensive, patriotic in spirit, and diligent in the quality of painstaking research. What makes Balkaran’s achievement even more commendable is that he is a non-resident: yet his commitment to preserving Guyana’s professional heritage has not diminished. His prose is straightforward and accessible, making the book useful not only to accountants but also to historians and the wider readership.

The book is primarily descriptive rather than analytical, cataloguing institutions and events without probing their deeper significance. Critical questions remain unexplored: How did accounting maintain colonial inequality? The contribution of the Bookers Cadet Scheme to the surge in the profession in the middle years of the last century. How did the exodus of outstanding accountants like “Sammy” Singh, Sugrim Mohan, Ossie Baptiste, Alan Luck and Hamil Majeed impact the profession locally? The extent, if any, to which audit quality was compromised under state ownership? Should the profession engage in emerging issues like oil and gas accounting, sovereign wealth funds and public sector accounting?

These are questions and issues the book leaves for others to explore. The promised Caribbean coverage is also uneven, with Jamaica and Trinidad receiving more attention than smaller territories.

Still, these limitations should not overshadow the significance of this rare achievement. By laying such a foundation, Balkaran has provided the raw material for future scholarship and public debate. His book secures the profession’s past for posterity while opening the space for critical engagement with its present and future. Indeed, this initiative is worthy of emulation in medicine, law and other professions.

In the end, History of Accounting & Auditing in Guyana is more than a professional chronicle. It is part of the national story, reminding us that behind every balance sheet lies a history of people, institutions, and ideas. For that reason, it deserves a place not only on the shelves of accountants, but in the libraries of all who care about Guyana’s past and future.

Posted on

Sovereignty or sanctity of contract: It’s a voters’ choice

Every Man, Woman and Child must become oil minded – Column 168

Introduction

Petroleum and gas and supporting services make up 94% of the Mining and Quarrying sector which in turn makes up 70% of Guyana’s economy. Since 2021, it has been primarily responsible for the spectacular growth that has earned Guyana the distinction of fastest growing economy in the world. Money from the oil fund (NRF) makes up exactly 50% of current revenues in 2025. It is acknowledged as the product of the most lopsided oil contract for the past several decades, measured by what the Government gets out of the sector compared with the blessings to the oil companies. All this while the private sector has a minimum wage of $60,000 per month, businesses complain about workers and foreign exchange and the poor complain about the cost of living.  

Naturally, the Government wants to divert attention from its management of the sector and has pushed the opposition into arguing how the miniature cake is to be shared rather than how to fight for a bigger cake. It is an area on which the ruling party ought to be most vulnerable although some might argue that corruption is mightily serious.

Come Monday September 1, as voters go to the polls, they may not be aware that the sector offers the greatest opportunity to truly transform Guyana. This is perhaps the last best chance to have some say on whether Guyana should re-assert its sovereignty rights and power to exercise control over our vast petroleum resources. That choice is not limited to oil but to the direction of the nation. If left unchallenged, the PPP’s model of petroleum sector administration will be no better than its administration of GuySuCo. Undisturbed, this model will define the country’s future for decades. And that is why the coming elections matter so deeply.

Trusting Ali and Jagdeo

We all recall how much we trusted Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo when they told us five years ago that they would review and renegotiate the 2016 Agreement as soon as they got back into power. The echo of their sounds had hardly receded before being replaced by the mantra “sanctity of contract”, national interest replaced by Exxon’s interest. 

The response to every criticism, suggestion or recommendation is met with the same response, as though repetition could transform political deception into some constitutional principle. The PPP try to sell its 2021 Petroleum Activities Act as an antidote, without ever mentioning that the 2021 Act does not apply to the 2016 Agreement.

Therefore, the iniquities remain, even if the electorate is led to believe the problem has been solved. With every passing day, every election cycle, every success at the polls or in the courts, the chance of change becomes less. Every act of theirs, and of the Ministry of Natural Resources, is designed to favour Exxon and its partners while the people go after the crumbs. 

The cost of the about turn

It is easier to see investments in roads, bridges, schools and physical, visible infrastructure than it is to see poverty and hardships. Only those who feel it know it. We need to do so much more than have large swathes of our population lament their state of poverty. A working-class government that truly cares would see it as a primary duty to say that we will not accept 14% for our depletable resources. It is the moral equivalent of the theft of our sovereignty. And the PPP/C is a willing accomplice. 

Its capitulation to Exxon manifests in concrete actions that undermine Guyana’s sovereignty: allowing Exxon to build its Ogle headquarters without the required Presidential license for foreign land acquisition, issuing production licenses without any conditions, and defending an overly broad stability clause that freezes Guyana’s laws until 2056 rather than utilising the agreement’s own renegotiation provisions, as the previous Coalition government successfully did with royalty rates. Most troubling is the government’s refusal to establish an independent Petroleum Commission, leaving critical oversight in the hands of the same politicians who have betrayed our trust.  

The last, best chance

The truth is simple: once these elections are done, the prospects for revisiting the 2016 Agreement will vanish. With each year, the unfairness will harden, and the legal and financial entanglements will grow more difficult to unwind.

That is why these elections must be understood as the last, best chance for Guyanese to demand action. A new mandate is the only leverage strong enough to force a government to put sovereignty above sanctity – and to borrow from Sir Jock Campbell- the people before Exxon’s profits.

Conclusion

This election is not an ordinary contest of parties and personalities. It is a referendum on the PPP’s management of the sector. This column argues that more than even oil, but because of it, sovereignty itself is on the ballot.

Posted on

Costs in this case risk closing doors of constitutional and administrative justice to all but the wealthy

Dear Editor,

Last Friday’s decision of the Chief Justice (ag.) in a case brought by Krystal Hadassah Fisher, a poor, ordinary woman voter from the hinterland, causes me serious concerns. That it may have been initiated and advanced by Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), one of the smaller parties contesting tomorrow’s elections, is irrelevant. The court’s language about “false assertion” and its description of the argument as a “grossly disingenuous” makes me understand why some legal personalities in Guyana who have participated in litigation in more civil jurisdictions, are unwilling to appear in our courts.

The applicant has already given notice of appeal, and the matter will be litigated further. But the issue that most troubles me is the cost of two million dollars which the court ordered the woman to pay, a sum perhaps many times her net worth. Worse, she has been given less than two weeks to produce the money.

Even if the payment will be borne by FGM, the decision does more than dispose of a case: it risks closing the doors of constitutional and administrative justice to all but the wealthy. It also flies in the face of the ruling by our highest court in Ramon Gaskin v Minister of Natural Resources [2024 CCJ 14 (AJ) GY], where the CCJ expressly refused to award costs against Gaskin even though he had lost at every stage of the case. The court explained that citizens who engage in public interest litigation perform a public service. That decision was notable in that the issue of cost was addressed by three of the five judges who presided over the matter.

My other concern is the approach by the local court in addressing the Krystal Fisher action. While I have not had the benefit of a reading of the decision, its approach appears at odds with the constitutional philosophy articulated in Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319, which Caribbean courts and the CCJ have consistently treated with deference. That case established that constitutions are sui generis instruments requiring generous, purposive interpretation to give life to citizens’ rights. In the Krystal Fisher case, the decision reflected a narrow, literalist approach that puts technical form over democratic substance.

Some in our society may prefer the fossilisation of the Burnham Constitution with its ambiguities, flaws, and dictatorial features. By punishing litigants who challenge those ambiguities, the Court unwittingly contributes to that fossilisation. Worse, the court seems unwilling to acknowledge the egregious and piecemeal drafting of our electoral laws. The principle of access to justice requires that no citizen should be penalised for ambiguities Parliament has failed to cure; the courts should be the first to highlight such deficiencies, not punish those who expose them.

Worryingly, this is not an isolated development. Only recently, a different court awarded costs of one million dollars against two citizens – including one politician – who had approached the court in good faith. The cumulative effect is unmistakable: a trend of punitive costs orders that discourage litigation brought by citizens. This risks making constitutional justice a privilege for the solvent few whose interest is generally limited to self-interest.

Access to justice is the lifeblood of democracy; to drain it with punitive costs is to suffocate it and rob it of its vibrancy, and of the expansion of opportunities and further development of society. Both of which are badly needed in Guyana.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

The absence of progress by the Constitutional Reform Commission is baffling given the human and financial resources at its disposal

Dear Editor,

Your article “Constitutional Reform Commission suspends work until after elections” (S/N Sept. 9, 2025) should trouble every Guyanese. I am particularly disappointed because I saluted the appointment of former Chancellor Carl Singh to lead the process, despite the politicisation of the membership of the Commission with party persons and handpicked members of civil society. Probably the most inappropriate was then attorney-at-law Dr. Kim Kyte as the representative of women and Mr. Adrian Anamayah, as farmers’ representative.

The twenty-one-member Commission is supported by a full Secretariat and a big fat budget. Among the members are some of the country’s most respected legal minds – including Justice Singh, the Head of the Bar Association, the Attorney-General, Senior Counsel, prominent attorneys-at-law and hand-picked representatives of civil society. With such talent and authority, the people of Guyana are entitled to expect diligence and progress.

Instead, more than a year after its establishment, the Commission has little to show beyond reported orientation sessions and internal familiarisation exercises. To compound the situation, the members have decided to “suspend work until after the General and Regional Elections.” As if that is not absurd enough, the Commission appears to be in breach of article 19 A of the Constitution and the Constitution Reform Commission Act, No. 16 of 2022 which require the Commission to make periodic reports to the National Assembly.

The collective failure of the Commission is doubly shameful. The 1999 Commission was sworn in on January 22, 1999, and by July 17 of that year it delivered its 300-page report to the National Assembly having received and analysed scores of submissions – some running to several pages – consulted widely, engaged local and foreign experts.

That body, operating under greater constraints, delivered results. Today, many of its recommendations remain unfinished business. Therefore, this Commission was not required to begin from zero, or as they say, reinvent the wheel. Unlike the 1999 Commission, the current Commission, had a body of material and unfinished business on which it could build.

Worse, Guyanese are reminded that both major parties – which have nine direct representatives and several indirect representatives – promised constitutional reform in their manifestos of 2015, repeated the pledge in 2020, and again in 2025. To now preside over this spectacle of delay and inertia is to insult the intelligence of the people.

Editor, this Commission is acting like our politicians – treating constitutional reform as something that is optional. In fact, constitutional reform aims to strengthen democracy, protect rights, improve government effectiveness, and enhance legitimacy by updating outdated institutions.

As a citizen, I take the liberty to call on the Chairperson, as an immediate act, to direct the Secretariat to prepare the draft of its first periodic report to the National Assembly, in accordance with article 119 A of the Constitution. That report should also include its schedule of national consultations and a clear timetable for the delivery of its terms of reference in the form of a final report to the National Assembly no later than twelve months hence.

The ineptitude that has characterised the past ten years in almost every constitutional body but one, every parliamentary body, and every statutory body, must end. Chairperson Singh must make himself available to the media, report to the National Assembly and ensure that his Commission not only does not waste taxpayers’ money but deliver on this critical function which it undertook.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram