Category: Business and Economic Commentary

Introduction

As Guyana’s economy expands at an unprecedented pace, driven by transformative oil revenues and ambitious infrastructure development, hundreds of billions of dollars in both recurrent and capital budget expenditures annually fall within the purview of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). This massive scale of public spending, coupled with citizens’ constitutional right to access information about these procurement decisions through the Commission of Information, makes the oversight role of both bodies more critical than ever.

Unfortunately, the current PPC has failed to meet even the minimum standards of competence, accountability and integrity. They are made worse by a web of conflicts that undermine the very foundations of constitutional governance. This failure is particularly damning when contrasted with the exemplary work of the previous Corbin-Gopaul PC which included two persons with earned PhD’s, two with Masters – one in finance and one in Procurement – and the fifth person with both engineering and legal professional qualifications. They produced a comprehensive body of work, including a strategic plan, detailed investigation reports, policy guidance to procuring entities, an employee handbook that any organisation in Guyana would consider exemplary, and proactive correspondence addressing systemic procurement issues. They demonstrated courage and independence by compelling a senior Minister to appear before them in their investigation into drug purchases at the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation.  

PPP/C’s failure

Fifteen years after the Constitution mandated a Procurement Commission and 13 years after the Procurement Act during which oversight under successive PPP/C Administrations was troublingly inadequate, the first Commission was appointed by President Granger in 2016, comprising the persons identified above. Mrs. Carol Corbin gave up a secure position at the CARICOM Secretariat and, supported by a team that met all the Constitution requirements, began discharging their constitutional duties. Commencing with no fixed place of abode, the Commission’s legacy includes strengthening Guyana’s entire public procurement framework and establishing proper rules of procedure, work that demonstrated the transformative potential of competent constitutional oversight.

The current Commission, headed by Ms. Chase and Vice-chair Berkley Wickham, a former Head of the National Procurement and Tender Administration (NPTAB), represents this standard’s complete antithesis. NPTAB was the subject of adverse criticisms during Mr. Wickham’s tenure there.

Egregious conflicts

At the centre of this institutional failure lies an extraordinary conflict of interest that spans both the Procurement and the Information Commissions. Ms. Chase continues to engage in private legal practice despite holding a full-time constitutional post, most troublingly serving as legal counsel for the Commissioner of Information in both his official and personal capacity. This interlocking relationship creates obvious consequences for the independence and effectiveness of both bodies, even if they were otherwise operating competently.

Under the Access to Information Act, the Commissioner exercises certain functions over the PPC. Without compromising both offices, the Chairperson cannot act as legal counsel for the very official to whom her Commission is answerable in a statutory relationship. Indeed, the PPC is also subject to the Commission of Information, exacerbating the conflicts and effectively neutering both institutions’ capacity to meet their intended purposes.

Ms. Chase’s position seems irretrievably egregious. Her relationship with Ramson appears to breach the PPC’s Code and the Code of Conduct under the Legal Practitioners Act, which prohibits attorneys from engaging in behaviour that undermines the dignity of the profession or the administration of justice.

This raises serious doubts about the judgment of both these senior lawyers.

Performance

The investigative record of the current PPC in its first year is equally indefensible. Only two of the ten complaints noted in its first-year report tabled in the National Assembly seem to have been satisfactorily concluded. The procedures for one were not followed, and there was no evidence of procedures being followed in another. Two were awaiting further information, and four were stalled pending the receipt of legal advice. Not only was the advice received several weeks before the end of the reporting period, but it was also months before the report’s submission date.

The Commission’s failure to act on these seems to evidence a high level of dysfunction. Even more astonishing is that legal advice was sought on a foundational issue: whether the Commission could investigate matters that predated its appointment. Any competent body or legal professional should resolve this basic jurisdictional point without external input. This contrasts with the previous Commission’s proactive investigations into major contracts like the New Demerara River Bridge feasibility study, their oversight of pharmaceutical procurement, and their systematic approach to addressing procurement irregularities across government agencies.

The report fails to note critical information, including contract values, procurement methods and the basis of selection. A separate compliance review of twelve projects is similarly limited, omitting the names of contractors, values and timelines. I would not wish to bore readers with another set of contrasts except to state that those set the benchmark for thoroughness and transparency.

Beyond these procedural and ethical failings, the Commission’s internal structure appears designed to obstruct functionality. The offices once assigned to Commissioners were repurposed, leaving Commissioners without a dedicated workspace. It is unacceptable and confidence-destroying for a constitutional body to operate in this manner, notably when the previous Commission had established proper operational procedures and professional standards, which the current Commission bizarrely sought to criticise in its first annual report. 

Conclusion

The current Commission’s term expires in about six weeks. We look forward to seeing the reports for the twelve months to July 2024 and 2025 to measure the decline. Commissioner Ramson appears entrenched for life – or at least as long as the PPP remains in power. There is little to look forward to there.

The previous PPC proved that this institution could excel. The current Commission’s standards represent institutional decline and a betrayal of constitutional principles. The vast resources over which they exercise constitutional and statutory functions make their poor performance too essential to ignore.

Business & Economics Column

Attorney General Anil Nandlall recently conceded that the NIS cash grant “is not the solution” – yet proceeds to promote it anyway. This telling admission encapsulates the government’s approach to the NIS crisis: politically expedient band-aids rather than principled reform.

The proposed one-off grants, ranging from $260,000 to $650,000 for contributors with 500-749 contributions, suffer from critical flaws.

 The NIS Act already provides an Old Age Grant for persons with 50-749 contributions, and it would have been a better solution to amend the Benefits Regulations under the NIS Act for consistency and some degree of permanency.  Second, the flat-rate payments ignore earnings history, violating the principle that benefits should reflect contributions. Third, the arbitrary cutoffs are particularly unjust: contributors with 749 contributions receive substantially less than those with 750.

I have proposed an alternative to the government: calculate benefits as a percentage of what contributors would have received with full contributions, based on their last insurable earnings.

This maintains that benefits should reflect contribution history while providing immediate relief. A crucial virtue of this approach is that it offers continuing benefits for life, rather than a one-off payment that necessities will soon consume amid our high cost of living. My proposal would make this a permanent feature through amended regulations, avoiding future ad-hoc interventions. Almost a week later, the proposal has gone unanswered.

Particularly concerning is that two governments have done little with two consecutive actuarial reports, compounded by the delay in publishing the 2023 Annual Report, which would likely show a dramatic improvement in NIS’s financial position due to oil sector contributions. Such neglect is not even appropriate for a cake shop – let alone the country’s most important social security scheme. Doling out money might have political benefits but is no substitute for management.

The Zainul case and GuySuCo story typify the challenges faced by the NIS over decades. The late GM Patrick Martinborough highlighted this in the only meaningful story ever told of the Scheme in its more than 50-year history. His book, published in 2015, offered the solution that the current Administration seeks.

“Oblivious of that fact, in 2016, the NIS announced a ‘strategy to recover outstanding debts’. Yet the same problems persist nine years later, suggesting these grand pronouncements were nothing more than political theatre to pander to the political directorate, with no serious implementation intention.  Did they check on Zainul’s employer – Toolsie Persaud Limited – whose carpenter employee appears to have kept better records than the company?  

The timing of the cash grant initiative, coming on the heels of another election, raises legitimate questions about whether this is genuine social policy or electoral politics. The optics of distributing cash grants, however inadequate, appear calculated to appeal to voters rather than to implement principled reform of our social security system.  But the politics itself are equally troubling. Nandlall is not even the subject minister responsible for NIS, yet he leads the support cast, having himself been guilty of violations of the Act, which he attributed to “ignorance.”

He must also know that many of the defaulting employers were or are government corporations and political colleagues. This selective accountability undermines enforcement credibility. The same government that threatens prosecution has shown remarkable leniency toward political allies and state entities that violate NIS regulations.

With our oil wealth, Guyana has a historic and unprecedented opportunity to transform NIS into a system worthy of our citizens. We need comprehensive reforms: modernising the NIS Act, restructuring the Board for independence, implementing actuarial recommendations, pursuing all delinquent employers regardless of connections, and establishing systems for reconstructing employment records when employer negligence is proven.

The announcement of the NIS one-off grant may be a done deal. That is a pity since it can be refined. Yet, it represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. The benefits to the Administration seem more designed to earn political mileage than to assist the hard-done-by NIS pensioners. The aim is to win another five years while the people of pensionable age get some cash equivalent to just six months’ worth of pension. Not a bad deal.

The Scheme loses reputation, credibility and the opportunity to establish a sound, sustainable framework. The cash grant – a newly discovered panacea for all ailments facing the country – fails to address systemic issues, creates new inequities, and kicks the can down the road.

Guyana needs solutions built on sound principles, not political opportunism and expediency. The question is not whether we can afford a better solution, it is whether we are prepared to expend the energy to analyse the problems and find and implement proper solutions.

The columnist has a long association with NIS reform. He drafted the NIS Act of Grenada (1983), served as the first Chairman of the NIS Board, was a member of President Jagdeo’s NIS Reform Committee (2007), and has represented numerous contributors in pursuing their claims.

The 38% tariff on Guyana’s exports to the United States is among the highest announced by President Donald Trump late last week. The number is half of the 76% that Trump’s economic advisers have calculated as the actual value of the tariff disparity between the USA and Guyana. However, what began as a comparison of tariff rates between the USA and individual countries soon evolved into something more complex – one that included non-tariff barriers, such as exchange rate manipulation, import controls, and phytosanitary measures. Finally, if anything can be called definitive under a mercurial and erratic figure like Trump, it is that the tariff was calculated based on US trade statistics.

The formula used is the higher of ten percent or the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total value of US imports from that country. For example, if the US has a $100 million trade deficit and imports $250 million in goods, the resulting tariff is 40% which is higher than the default 10%. However, if the deficit is only $10 million, the percentage would be 4%, and the 10% minimum would be applicable. It is mind-boggling that the country with the world’s largest number of Nobel laureates in economics would rely on what is worse than voodoo economics.

The Economist, a highly respected weekly, described the move as “the most profound, harmful, and unnecessary economic error in the modern era.” Others have been more cutting. The London Observer labeled the tariffs “fundamentally wrong, brutal, and paranoid,” while The Atlantic suggested that understanding them requires insight into Trump’s mind alone. Among the absurdities: the inclusion of the Heard and McDonald Islands – uninhabited volcanic outcrops mostly home to penguins and, in another case, a few U.S. military personnel.

Guyana compared

Guyana, like Trinidad and Suriname, is part of CARICOM’s Common External Tariff and VAT system. Yet while our neighbours face only a 10% tariff, Guyana’s is a staggering 38%. Why the disparity? The answer lies in how the U.S. counts oil.

Our largest export to the U.S. is crude oil, totaling several billion U.S. dollars. In 2023, ExxonMobil alone accounted for nearly US$5 billion. And yet Guyana neither owns nor controls this oil – it is extracted and exported by foreign companies under a contract that leaves us with little revenue and even less control. This is reminiscent of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, which were encouraged by the U.S. to replace China as low-cost producers. So much for believing that America is ever a friend.

Stabroek News on Friday carried the government’s announcement that crude petroleum, gold, and aluminum are exempt from the Trump tariff. Unlike the government, I take no comfort in that unsourced information. These are not Guyanese exports in any meaningful sense. Our country does not export petroleum products to the U.S.; ExxonMobil and Hess do. The same applies to bauxite ore and gold. Unless the 38% is reduced to 10%, there is no benefit to our genuine local exporters – of seafood, rum, lumber, and other products.

Opportunity for renegotiation of the 2016

Petroleum Agreement

Guyana is not the villain here. We are the victim –  first of a contract, then of a misrepresentation, and now of a penalty. We must assert our sovereignty, protect our economy, and demand accuracy and fairness. We have been and continue to be robbed, once by the 2016 PSA, then by the statistical misrepresentation of our exported products, and now, a third time, by a tariff rooted in that fiction.

If the last is rectified, our exporters will face a 10% tariff and struggle to remain competitive. At 38%, they’re either out of the U.S. market or out of business. In light of this fundamental shift, we should now assert our right to call for renegotiation – not just of the tariff, but of the petroleum agreement that underpins this entire distortion.

Renegotiate the tariff

International media have reported that more than fifty countries have requested meetings with the U.S. Admi-nistration to negotiate their assigned tariffs. Guyana must join that effort –  perhaps through CARICOM – but with a competent team and accurate data. We must ensure that the value of oil exports by foreign companies is excluded from the balance of trade figures used by the USA to compute the tariff it will impose on Guyana.

Here’s the key distinction: Exemption refers to any product that escapes the tariff. The oil exported by Exxon and Hess is not Guyanese in any economic sense. Exclusion means not counting it in the equation since it inflates our true surplus and wrongly triggers penalties. What Guyana truly needs is exclusion, not exemption. Our politicians and negotiators must be clear and uncompromising in this matter. If they do not, we will be negotiating from a position of weakness.

The broader picture

Trump’s tariff policy reveals a deeper strategic miscalculation. The United States helped create and benefited most from the post-war global trade architecture, including the WTO, GATT, and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment. That system fostered prosperity and stability. Now, Trump seeks to unravel it.

The signs are not good. Trump is doubling down, and reversing his executive order would deflate the tough-guy image he cultivates. We should expect inflation, a dip in oil prices, and a period of economic turbulence. Global trade infrastructure will need to be rethought – and re-fought.

Conclusion

Guyana must resist being cast as a trade surplus villain when, in truth, it is a victim of a flawed contract and misleading data. We must demand a new conversation – one grounded in economic reality and national dignity. This is a moment for clarity, courage, and collective action. “The question, then, is not whether we respond – but whether we are ready to do so with courage, clarity and competence.

Business and Economic Commentary

Introduction

It took 136 years for the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry to elect a woman – Mrs. Kathy Smith – as its President. While that milestone is welcome, it underscores just how far Guyana still has to go in honouring its constitutional promise to women. While considerably younger, the more powerful Private Sector Commission does everything to sideline women as its leader. The promise of equality enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution of Guyana, is a distant dream. This is what Article 29 states.

“Women’s participation in the various management and decision-making processes, whether private, public or state, shall be encouraged and facilitated by laws enacted for that purpose or otherwise.”

It does not need to be elevated to a fundamental right: there is an article against any form of discrimination. It is not aspirational: it is binding. And yet, over 40 years since an equivalent provision was included in the controversial Constitution in 1980, its implementation has moved incredibly slowly. This may have explained the choice of the topic by acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards in a lecture honouring Dame Desiree Bernard, the first woman judge, first woman Chancellor of the Judiciary, and the first woman on the Caribbean Court of Justice. It was an occasion for reflection – and lament.

Progress and reality  

During the 1990s, Guyana saw a brief but hopeful period of progressive legislative reform. This included the landmark Domestic Violence Act of 1996, the Equal Rights Act, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1995, and the first serious efforts to address sexual harassment and gender-based violence. These measures, hard-won through years of advocacy and the leadership of Cheddi Jagan, suggested the beginning of a new era. But the momentum has faded, almost standing still. Since the early 2000s, little legislative advancement has addressed gender inequality. The silence around Article 29 is part of that broader stagnation.

The statistics tell the story. Only two of the thirteen companies listed on the Guyana Stock Exchange are chaired by women, one effectively non-trading, and the other of comparatively small capitalisation but as well led as any of the others. Women lead only three of fourteen key public agencies and account for only 19% of Guyana’s ambassadors. The private sector is even more male-dominated, with almost all leading business organisations headed by men.

Only nine of the forty-two recently reviewed companies, agencies and missions had women in top leadership roles – just 21%. Politically, the imbalance is more severe: the five top government positions are held by men, and every major political party—PPP/C, PNCR, AFC, WPA, and ANUG—is male-led. It will take a more scientific analysis to determine any link between gender and the state of politics and governance in Guyana. Even in professions like law and accountancy, where women now match or exceed men in numbers, leadership remains overwhelmingly male. Women are often confined to leadership in “care” sectors or social organisations, reinforcing outdated ideas about their appropriate role in public life.

Two ironies in the judiciary stand out. First, the Chancellor and the Chief Justice – both distinguished and experienced women – remain in acting positions, their appointments blocked by the refusal of a single man, the President, to confirm them. Second, at the Chancellor’s lecture, sponsored by the Guyana Associa-tion of Women Judges, only one of six male judges of the Court attended. Their absence said more than words could.

Other salient concerns

But the failure to honour Article 29 is about exclusion, fear, silence, and even danger. Domestic violence and femicide are endemic in Guyana. Even women in high office face indignity. Sitting in the front row of UG’s main lecturer theatre was Ms. Priya Manickchand, Minister of Education having been  publicly berated by the President – an incident still proudly displayed on his Facebook page. No Cabinet colleague, male or female, defended her. To her discredit, she stood there and took it, some days later posing with the President.

Beyond politics

Contrast that with the case of a male Minister in the Cabinet who was accused and exonerated of heinous sexual misconduct. Female colleagues expressed disgust privately but said nothing publicly, fearing retaliation or isolation. That man is now being rehabilitated by the male leadership of the Government. In Guyanese politics, showing moral independence -especially if you are a woman – is often interpreted as disloyalty. Speaking out can mean career exile, character attacks, and personal risk. This toxic culture rewards silence and punishes principles.

The problem, of course, extends beyond politics. Our social and economic landscape often forces women into conformity – staying in abusive relationships, remaining silent at work, or avoiding leadership ambitions – because of financial dependency, social norms, or fear of ostracism. To our country’s discredit, for too many women, the stark choice is between survival and self-expression.

Conclusion

If Article 29 is to mean anything, Guyana must move beyond lip service and take concrete action. Laws must be passed to give teeth to its command, and institutions and individuals must be held accountable for promoting – not just permitting – women’s leadership. Cultural change must follow, breaking the social norms that silence women or push them into submission for the sake of survival.

Chancellor Cummings-Edwards asked: “Have we arrived?” Her reply: “We are there, but there is still more to go.” I must respectfully express my doubts. When leadership remains overwhelmingly male, when women are berated in public and silenced in private, and when a promise like Article 29 goes unfulfilled for decades, the journey has barely begun.

Until women are no longer blocked, silenced, or punished for leading, Article 29 will remain not just a broken promise – but a standing indictment of Guyana’s democratic conscience and of our society.  

December 15, 2024

The Natural Resource Fund Debate – That Demands Accountability and Civility

The public debate and exchanges surrounding the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) highlight concerns about governance and the need for principled public discourse, particularly on grave national importance. At the centre is Dr Terrence Campbell, the holder of a PhD in Business Administration and a successful entrepreneur. In a letter to the media in his capacity as a member of the Investment Committee of the Natural Resource Fund, Campbell raised issues about transparency and compliance with the NRF Act. That letter emphasised the requirements of Section 16(2), which mandates that all withdrawals must meet specific criteria: financing national development priorities and major natural disasters.

Instead of prompting constructive debate, Campbell was personally attacked by anonymous bloggers and partisans who offered little substance while serving as a prelude to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s direct intervention.

Jagdeo’s Missteps

In an initial comment, Mr Jagdeo accused Campbell of racism and, more recently, dismissed Campbell’s concerns by invoking a contrast between their respective upbringings. Jagdeo portrayed himself as humbly rooted on the East Coast of Demerara, implying that Campbell was urban and privileged. Correcting the Vice President, Campbell noted that he came out of the distant community of Mahdia with all its attendant challenges.

Taken together, Jagdeo’s statements reveal a dangerously flawed interpretation of the NRF Act. He asserted that detailed expenditure tracking was only necessary for emergency withdrawals, ignoring Section 16(2)’s clear stipulation that all withdrawals must meet specified criteria and undergo oversight. Emergency spending, governed by supplementary appropriation bills, requires a separate process distinct from the scrutiny of annual budgetary allocations. Jagdeo’s conflation of national priorities with general budget items further undermined his position, raising questions about his familiarity and knowledge of the law.

Campbell’s Measured Response

Campbell’s reply demonstrated civility and focus. While acknowledging Jagdeo’s slight concession – from declaring tracking “difficult” to agreeing to track emergencies – Campbell questioned why the same standard could not extend to all NRF withdrawals. Campbell emphasised that the national budget, filled with discretionary items, is not synonymous with national development priorities. He reiterated the NRF Act’s requirement for specificity and accountability, challenging Jagdeo to provide a legal basis for his distinction.

The Governance Gap

This debate underscores a broader concern about the NRF’s governance. Campbell’s call for the NRF Board and the Public Accountability and Oversight Committee to discharge their statutory duties reflects a commitment to the rule of law. These entities must ensure that all withdrawals align with the criteria set out in Section 16(2). If the government wishes to bypass these requirements, it should approach Parliament to amend the law – not reinterpret it to suit its agenda.

Jagdeo’s familiarity with the NRF Act adds another layer to the critique. He has been successively junior Finance Minister, Finance Minister, President and Vice President since 1992. He also led the attack on the Coalition Government’s NRF. He was in the National Assembly when the Ali Administration passed its version of the NRF in a late-night session of the National Assembly. And, of course, he has access to the Hansard of that debate.

Therefore, he should fully understand the distinctions between national priorities, emergency measures, and their respective legislative processes. His current misrepresentation undermines the principles of accountability outlined in the Act and emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which committed the NRF to international best practices, including transparency and public reporting.

A Lesson for Public Discourse

Campbell’s approach offers a valuable example of how national debates should be conducted. Despite personal attacks, he remained composed and focused on the law. His critics, including anonymous bloggers, should note that public discourse benefits from substance, not ad hominem attacks. Jagdeo and his defenders would also do well to emulate Campbell’s civility and clarity.

Fixing the problems

There is no question in my mind that the Vice President’s use of words like “balkanisation” and “difficulty” and his subsequent concession on national disasters makes his interpretation less flawed or less mistaken. The Ali Administration needs to step back from this grave error and restore confidence in the entire NRF framework and operation. It must ensure that all withdrawals comply with Section 16(2)’s criteria without artificial distinctions between spending categories, that the NRF Board and oversight committees be independent, and that detailed public reporting on all NRF expenditures – whether for national priorities or emergencies – must become standard.

Public discourse must also rise above personal attacks. By fostering a culture of constructive engagement, Guyana can ensure that the NRF fulfils its potential as a tool for sustainable development and intergenerational equity.

Conclusion

The NRF is a historically unique opportunity for Guyana to secure its future. Its governance must reflect the highest transparency, accountability, and legal compliance standards, consistent with the Santiago principles. Jagdeo’s flawed interpretation of the NRF Act and the uncritical defences from his supporters highlight the urgent need for a course correction.

As someone who has been engaging in public discourses for nearly forty years, I found Campbell’s intervention bringing a much-needed sense of lucidity, decency and renewal. We all need to follow his example and commit to principled debate, ensuring that the NRF serves the people – not the politics of one man.