A country’s passport is not a political billboard, the administration has crossed a dangerous line

Dear Editor,

There have been many letters and comments on the 10-year passports with President Ali’s slogan “One Guyana” emblazoned therein. It may have escaped attention that the Constitution of Guyana – Article 5 and Schedule 2 – includes the emphatic statement on the country’s national motto with the words “One People, One Nation, One Destiny”. It is, therefore, a violation of the Constitution for the Ali Administration to unilaterally seek to impose party hegemony – or, as Forbes Burnham referred to it, party paramountcy – over the Guyana Constitution.

A country’s passport is not a political billboard but a sovereign document that belongs to all its citizens, supporters and non-supporters alike. Therefore, unless amended, no other words can appropriately be substituted. Even Trump, with all his excesses and Executive Orders, would not dare to use his MAGA (Make America Great Again) on that country’s passport.

We have already witnessed the “One Guyana” slogan appearing at the entrance of the University of Guyana, as well as in public sector documents, school materials, government-sponsored events, the national currency, and photographs in every public building in Guyana. This all-consuming obsession with photo opportunities and personal branding has permeated almost every aspect of public life. Now, with the slogan’s appearance on our passports, the administration has crossed a dangerous line – effectively forcing every citizen who requires international travel to carry party propaganda. It even suggests that allegiance to a political vision is a prerequisite for full citizenship, a notion fundamentally at odds with democratic principles.

President Ali is the first full-term President of our oil-rich economy. He has a right and an opportunity to create a meaningful legacy for himself. As Head of State and Executive President, he is expected to do the ceremonial things – like ribbon cuttings and sod turning on top of grandiose announcements. But he needs to have a balance that allows him to address the serious stuff – like widespread corruption, constitutional reform, compliance with constitutional guardrails, reduction in income and wealth distribution, proper governance, and equal opportunities for all Guyanese.

He needs to get this balance right. Even though he has embarrassingly failed to meet his 25 by 25 commitment to CARICOM, he was able to find time to do research and write a book Achieving Global Food Security (on sale on Amazon for US$38). In other words, President Ali should be spending more time on real issues and measurable progress in the daily lives of Guyanese and national outcomes, and not focus on frivolities, however easy and tempting they might be. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

The President must suspend the GOAL programme to clarify these troubling questions

Dear Editor,

Your article “Questions rise over third-party provider in GOAL programme” (March 16, 2025) vindicates Guyanese’s concerns and fears about the credibility and integrity of the Government’s Guyana Online Academy of Learning (GOAL) programme. Launched in 2021, this programme has already cost the country billions and provided degrees to thousands of Guyanese who may find them marginally useful inside and outside of Guyana.

Your report suggests that Dr. Jacob Opadeyi, whose tenure as Vice Chancellor ended years ago, exercises substantial control over the programme, beyond and above the Ministry of Education, the University of Guyana and the national laws on procurement. But even that exclusivity – and Opadeyi’s relationship with the Office of the President – does not make his attitude toward legitimate scrutiny any more acceptable. His response to Stabroek News – telling the country’s most trusted newspaper to “do its research” – is arrogant and indicative of a deeper problem: a complete lack of transparency and accountability. If public funds are being spent on a major national initiative, those overseeing it – Guyanese or non-Guyanese – should welcome scrutiny, not deflect it.

Yet for all his brazenness, it is not Opadeyi who should be answering questions about the programme but Dr. Ashni Singh, who, as Minister responsible for public service, has direct oversight of GOAL which falls under the Office of the President, via the Ministry of Public Service.

My first concern is why President Ali considers it more appropriate for the programme to be administered by the Office of the President rather than the Ministry of Education, which has the expertise and institutional capacity to oversee higher education? There are other troubling questions:

1.  Why is the government using ISDC – a foreign entity with a tangled web of related dormant companies – instead of partnering directly with accredited universities?

2.  The UWI Open Campus is listed as a partner university of GOAL. What programmes does the Campus offer under the GOAL programme?

Another partner “university” describes itself as an independent higher education provider accredited by the British Accreditation Council (BAC). What is the nature of that so-called accreditation?

4. What is the actual value of GOAL certificates, given that recognised institutions like Liverpool and Staffordshire have publicly disassociated from the GOAL programme and ISDC?

5. Why is there such secrecy around how much of the $4 billion spent on GOAL has been paid to ISDC, particularly since it falls under the Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance?

6.   How is the GOAL programme structured and who make up its top management?

7.  Has GOAL or the Ministry of the Public Service provided audited financial statements and where can these be found?

8.   Has the agreement between GOAL and ISDC or any institution of higher learning been tabled in the National Assembly?

9.   If not, where can that Agree-ment(s) be found?

10.   Has Opadeyi been requested to provide annual reports on GOAL’s operation and finances, and where can that be found?

With the interests of current GOAL students as my paramount concern, I respectfully ask the President to take the following steps to protect both students and the integrity of education in Guyana.

●  Pause the programme until a full, independent review is conducted.

●  Release the full contract with ISDC and publish a detailed breakdown of all payments made.

●    Have a forensic audit of the operations and finances of GOAL. 

●    Examine the feasibility of bringing GOAL under the University of Guyana.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

The Bahamas gets 15% tax on Guyana oil revenue and Guyana (like Piggy) gets none

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 153

“The OECD/G20’s Pillar Two framework mandates that all in-scope MNEs (multi-national enterprises) pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on profits in each jurisdiction. The Bahamas must act decisively to ensure that these taxes are collected here, rather than abroad”: The Bahamas Government

Introduction

In a development that would be almost comical were it not so devastatingly costly to Guyana, The Bahamas is now poised to collect taxes on income earned by Exxon from Guyana’s oil wealth. Contrast that with Guyana, whose government, despite widespread calls for similar action, refuses to exercise its sovereign right and power to tax all income earned in Guyana. The Bahamas’ initiative-taking adoption of the OECD’s Pillar Two framework exposes Guyana’s fiscal negligence and its leaders’ spineless subservience to ExxonMobil and multinational interests. The framework ensures that multinational enterprises pay a minimum tax of 15%.

Guyana’s refusal to adopt the OECD framework reveals an uncomfortable truth: our government has actively given up billions in revenue rather than even suggesting that ExxonMobil and its partners Hess and CNOOC should pay taxes on its hefty profits from Guyana. This active, deliberate and calculated inaction has led to the absurdity where The Bahamas, a country with only sand, sea and shells, will soon generate more tax revenue from Guyana’s oil industry than Guyana itself!!

The Bahamas is known for its tax haven status, but the country wants to collect revenues from its multinationals and stand alongside countries that take their reputation seriously – at least until Exxon finds another country to shield its Guyana profits.

The Cost of Inaction: Billions Lost, No Accountability

No one should be fooled that Guyana’s refusal to join the OECD framework is an oversight -it is a manifestation of the country’s leadership kowtowing to Exxon and Hess over the interest of their own people. They know that if they sign on, they must commit self-styled heresy by charging tax on Exxon. Unfortunately, this is not their only show of loyalty to Exxon. Their refusal to utilise the renegotiation clause in the 2016 Petroleum Agreement already stands as a glaring example of fiscal surrender, with Guyana not only waiving its right to collect taxes but also reimbursing ExxonMobil for its tax obligations and providing receipts for taxes Exxon and Hess never actually paid.

This is not about legal constraints or contractual obligations – this is about a government that has chosen to protect ExxonMobil from taxation rather than safeguard the financial future of its own people.

Giving away the Billions

It is estimated that Guyana has already given up around three billion United States Dollars in taxes which the oil companies should have paid since 2020. To put this in perspective, The Bahamas anticipates generating approximately US$$140 million annually through its new tax measures, applied across its entire economy. Given the vast scale of ExxonMobil’s operations in Guyana, our potential revenue under the same framework would dwarf this figure multiple times over.

The Flimsy Justifications for Guyana’s Tax Giveaway

Government officials, from President Irfaan Ali to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, continue to hide behind “contract sanctity” rhetoric to justify this inaction. Yet, their arguments collapse under even the most basic scrutiny. While The Bahamas is demonstrating the ability of a small nation to assert its tax sovereignty, Guyana’s leaders remain silent on why they refuse to do the same.

Former Prime Minister Samual Hinds has jumped on the Exxon Train and recently claimed that Guyana’s 2% royalty and profit-sharing arrangements compensate for the complete tax exemption granted to ExxonMobil. This is nineteenth-century, misleading, and fiscally irresponsible. No other oil-producing nation has accepted such terms, and the insistence on defending them reflects either shocking economic mismanagement or deliberate efforts to placate corporate interests at the expense of national development.

What contract sanctity?

It seems that the Government is engaged in some dodgy accounting regarding the taxes to be paid to the Guyana Revenue Authority. Under the 2016 Agreement, those funds should come from the government’s share of profits. But as we know, the 2021 Natural Resource Fund Act limits the use of the NRF funds. That, as lawyers would say, is an amendment by implication. However, an examination of the Government Estimates shows that there is no collection by the GRA, so the question then is who issued the Tax Certificate since it is not the GRA.

The inevitable question is whether Exxon accepted the amendment to the tax payment provision in the 2016 Agreement and whether there is some off-the-book arrangement between the company and the Government of Guyana.

Conclusion

The stark absurdity speaks for itself: The Bahamas, a country of sand and sea, will soon collect more tax from Guyana’s oil wealth than Guyana itself. While The Bahamas boldly asserts its rights under the OECD framework, Guyana’s government remains locked in what can only be described as an unholy alliance with ExxonMobil – providing tax receipts for unpaid taxes, refusing to renegotiate terms, and refusing to sign on to an international tax framework thereby surrendering billions in revenue. To describe this as fiscal negligence is too kind. It constitutes a deliberate betrayal of national interests that transforms Guyana’s oil blessing into a case study of corporate colonialism in the 21st century.

The art of political survival differs only in personalities, locations and the prices to be paid

Dear Editor,

The recent news of a prominent political personality seeking refuge in the embrace of his former adversary has not just left many shaking their heads in disbelief, but has also sparked profound questions about motives and morality, decency and dignity, principles and pragmatism. The public’s shock at this turn of events is palpable, and rightly so. When faced with serious legal troubles, including allegations of conspiracy and fraud, some politicians grasp at any lifeline – even if it means kissing the ring of those they once opposed.

This calculated move comes as he faces multiple charges, including allegations of fraud and political shenanigans. These are not just serious; they are potentially career-ending. Now, in what appears to be a desperate bid for self-preservation, he aligns himself with the One who can save his skin, profession and liberty.

The timing is particularly telling. As the walls of justice close in, we witness this dance of political expedience – a man now abandons his political birthplace – a party for which he once marched at considerable risk, even taking figurative bullets in its service. Yet here he stands, ready to desert those battle-earned principles for personal preservation. The betrayal is palpable, and no alliteration is intended to soften the blow.

It is a twist worthy of Shakespeare: in a stunning reversal that would make Brutus blush, the man embraces his lifelong political adversary, followed by a lengthy message in a prominent newspaper – just in case anyone missed his reincarnation. The irony is not lost on us- a figure who once marched proudly with and for his people now seeks redemption and forgiveness in his former adversary’s corridors. When legal troubles loom, political loyalty seems as flexible as a rubber band, stretching over old boundaries until it snaps. Will the prosecuting authorities now get the message that he is now our guy, as much as you are?

Some might assume that I am writing about my friend and professional colleague, Mr. James Bond, following his recent political realignment. Any parallels are purely coincidental. In fact, I speak of no less a person than Eric Adams, the Mayor of New York City, who now courts Donald Trump’s favour while facing serious charges of bribery, fraud and illegal foreign donations. The case of mistaken identity proves that the script of political survival plays out the same, from East Coast Demerara to East Manhattan, New York – only the personalities and the price for their reinvention differ.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

PPP/C ministers are becoming wealthy

Dear Editor,

Vice President Jagdeo’s recent pronouncement on ownership of shares in companies by ministers reveals a dangerously disturbing development. The fact that it was made at the ruling party’s head office and not at a government location only adds to the concern.

We are witnessing the de facto implementation of party paramountcy made infamous in the Sophia Declaration – the doctrine for which the PNC was rightfully condemned. His statement that “we told [ a named Minster] he had to disengage” demonstrates how party directives have superseded proper governmental channels and constitutional authority.

This situation is aggravated by the egregious realisation that the authority to set standards of ministerial conduct rests in the law and the President, not the ruling party’s General Secretary or a vice-president. Mr. Jagdeo goes even further. He speaks as though he personally oversees ministers’ compliance with ethical guidelines and Integrity Commission declarations – an access to which he has no legal right, and one rife with irony.

His attitude toward the fundamental conflict between public duty and private interest shows that even after thirty years, he still does not subscribe to or understand the basic principles of decency in public life. While ordinary public servants face strict rules on what they may do outside of their public service duties, ministers who wield far greater power over national decisions are apparently exempt from these basic ethical requirements.

Ministers today receive substantial salaries and perks, specifically designed to ensure their undivided attention to public service. Yet what we are witnessing appears to be unbridled greed, with ministers rapidly joining the ranks of Guyana’s wealthiest citizens during their tenure in office.

Mr. Jagdeo’s assertion that ministers need only “avoid conflict of interest” while maintaining business interests is, at best, dangerously naive and deliberately misleading at worst. In a small economy like Guyana’s, with government decisions affecting virtually every sector, no minister can objectively isolate their private interests from their public duties. In any case, conflict is a matter of perception, not a fact established by evidence. 

The irony cannot be lost on anyone: while the PPP/C once championed the separation of party and state and decried the corruption of power, they now embody those very practices. This is not merely about technical compliance with rules – it is about the fundamental integrity of our governance and the principle that public office is a service, not a path to personal enrichment.

President Ali must act to restore integrity to his government. His duty is clear: assert his constitutional authority and end this abuse of public office. Or accept responsibility for the corruption his silence and inaction enable.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram