Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

It is deeply disappointing that Dr. Ashni Singh, the de facto Minister of Finance, failed in his 2025 mid-year report to account for the much-publicised $10 billion “injection” into the National Insurance Scheme. Though repeatedly touted by the President and Dr. Singh, no report – let alone an audited statement – has been produced to show what was paid or how contributors’ rights were affected. This was all political theatre, not transparency, not governance.

As minister responsible for the NIS, Dr. Singh’s record is troubling. Annual NIS reports are years overdue, denying Parliament and the public meaningful oversight. For decades, actuarial recommendations to restore the Scheme’s viability have been ignored. Its survival has depended largely on fortuitous contributions from temporary oil and gas workers – a matter of chance, not competent management.

It also bears recalling that Dr. Singh presided over the Ministry of Finance when the Scheme suffered heavy investment losses following the collapse of Clico, in a sector over which he exercised oversight. That failure continues to haunt the NIS. And in fifteen years as minister responsible for the NIS, not a single amending law has been introduced to modernise this Burnham-era legislation.

Against this background, the one-off cash grant is misleading, coercive and unjust. No new funds are injected; the State merely reimburses payments made. Contributors are required to surrender legal claims arising from disputed contributions – many of which exist only because of chronic mismanagement and poor record-keeping. In effect, the Government has used a cheap avenue to settle its moral and legal obligations.

The Scheme, encouraged by the Government, intimidates claimants by way of appeals – as in the case of the carpenter, and another (an octogenarian) who must wait for his appeal to be heard by a vacant internal tribunal awaiting an appointment, yes by the Minister of Finance.

This week I learnt of another contribution saga, this time of a retired teacher who over a period of several years had her contributions adjusted from 621 to 674 and then to 721, still short of 750, the minimum to qualify for a pension. The NIS likes to placate such persons by assuring them that some persons are short by one contribution!

Elderly claimants, facing ill health and delay, are abandoning valuable legal rights for the one-off grant. This makes the NIS happy, no more hard work, thorough investigations and follow-up with employers, or having their inadequacies pronounced on by the courts in a public forum.

In practice, contributors are forced to trade pension rights worth millions for a one-off payment of $650,000, while bearing the near-impossible burden of proving decades-old employment and contributions.

This injustice is compounded by a Board shaped through ministerial appointments, leaving contributors without meaningful representation.

Until audited figures are published, contributors’ rights clarified, and genuine reform undertaken, the NIS will continue to operate behind a façade of action. Responsibility now rests squarely with Dr. Ashni Singh. Continued inaction is both glaring and inhumane.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Yesterday’s (11 January 2026) Stabroek News carried a notice by Banks DIH Holdings Inc. convening its second Annual General Meeting for Saturday, 31 January 2026. The newspaper also reported that the company proposes to cap shareholder voting power at 15%.

No shareholder I have spoken to – including several members of staff at Ram & McRae – has received either the notice of meeting or the company’s annual report. An electronic copy of the annual report was, however, made available to me, having  been downloaded from the company’s subsidiary’s website.

That circumstance immediately raises questions concerning the adequacy of notice and the distribution of the annual report. The Companies Act sets out a clear statutory framework governing these matters, and compliance with both the Act and the company’s constituent documents is not optional.

While that matter is important, I treat it as secondary. The more serious concern lies in one of the proposed resolutions and, in particular, the proposed amendment to the company’s by-laws.

The Notice states that “Article 8 of the By-Laws” is to be amended to impose a 15% cap on shareholding and voting power, with votes above that threshold to be rendered invalid and not counted. The proposal further provides for the aggregation of interests held by spouses, children, trusts, controlled companies and persons said to be “acting in concert”, establishes a special register, appoints a “Special Registrar”, and ultimately empowers the directors to compel the disposal of shares deemed to be held in excess of the limit.

This proposal is misconceived, constitutionally unsound, legally impermissible, and violative of the most basic principles of company law and the fundamental nature of a public company. It seeks, through by-laws, to do what the law permits, in appropriate circumstances, only by amendment of the articles of incorporation by way of a special resolution.

To begin with, there is a fundamental conceptual error. There is no such thing in our Companies Act, or in company law generally, as an “Article of the By-Laws”. Articles are mandatory constitutional instruments; by-laws are separate and secondary, generally confined to internal administration. They cannot define, restrict, or extinguish proprietary rights. The reference to “Article 8 of the By-Laws” therefore reflects not loose drafting, but disappointingly, a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principles of company law and the hierarchy of corporate instruments established by the Act: first the Act, then the Articles, and only then the by-laws.

More fundamentally, a restriction on voting rights or on the effective enjoyment of shares is a restriction on property. Under the Companies Act, such restrictions must be expressly stated in the articles and should appear on the share certificate. They cannot be imposed, enlarged, or enforced through by-laws, however carefully they are worded. A by-law cannot lawfully invalidate rights attached to issued shares, nor can it set conditions to their disposal. Even unanimous shareholder approval cannot cure an illegality.

But beyond illegality, the proposal is objectionable in conception. It is not even-handed. While it aggregates certain relationships to enforce the 15% cap, it ignores economically aligned companies that together exercise significant influence. That selectivity exposes the proposal for what it is: a mechanism to entrench existing control by neutralising potential rival shareholders.

Restrictions of this nature belong to the private-company model and, in those limited circumstances, require amendment of the articles by special resolution. In a public company, their effect would be to destroy its public character by undermining the free and proportionate exercise of shareholder rights.

There are additional concerns with the structure of the proposed resolutions. The prudent course is either to withdraw the Notice and reconsider the proposal, in which case a new meeting would have to be convened, or, if it is satisfied that the statutory notice period has been properly complied with, to withdraw the impugned amendment and proceed with the remaining business on the agenda.

That would ensure and demonstrate compliance and respect for the law, for shareholders, and for the integrity of the company’s governance.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In announcing his appointment of members to the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) without consulting the Leader of the Opposition, President Ali explained that no consultation was possible because no such Leader had been elected since the elections, and that conditions in the education sector required immediate action. In substance, the President was asking the public to accept that constitutional compliance could be set aside in the name of urgency and the public good. That is a bitter pill to swallow.

The Constitution does not suggest or invite consultation with the Leader of the Opposition: it commands it. The constitutional office of LOO is not ceremonial, ornamental nor optional. It is intended to place a restraint on executive power in a winner-take-all constitutional system and to ensure that constitutional commissions operate independently and professionally, representative of the society rather than as proxies for the government of the day. By ignoring this constitutional mandate, the appointments to the TSC are not merely irregular; they are  constitutionally tainted – and dangerous.

On inspection, the President’s announcement rings hollow. As a senior member of the Bar observed in another context – that of the mysterious exit of the former acting Chancellor – procedural silence often conceals mischief. The prolonged failure to have a Leader of the Opposition elected raises identical concerns. This is not conjecture; it is a conclusion supported by deliberate inaction and disturbing, verifiable facts.

The elections are over. The recess has been taken. Parliament is sitting. A speaker has been elected. Opposi-tion members are present and calling for the election. The Speaker first disappears and then, acting with the political comfort of his sponsors strengthened by an enlarged government majority, blatantly refuses to facilitate the election. This is not inadvertence. It is obstruction. The vacancy advanced by President Ali to justify his constitutional violation, has been engineered, maintained, and is now being cynically invoked by the President.

What is being presented as constitutional impossibility is, in truth, constitutional engineering.

The President has attempted to cloak this manoeuvre in urgency, pointing to staffing pressures within the education system. He spoke of some 2,700 senior vacancies to be filled, including more than 800 newly created senior posts that did not previously exist. The suggestion was that events had overtaken constitutional formality. But the 2025 Estimates expose that claim. Education staffing spans Agency 40 and all ten regions. Its levels, scales and senior layers were known, budgeted for and deliberately restructured. These pressures were not sudden. They were foreseeable and, in significant part, policy-driven.

That makes the invocation of urgency disingenuous. Senior vacancies do not arise overnight; they build up over time and should have been addressed long before they became a constitutional excuse. The urgency claim also clashes with the Government’s own rhetoric. In his 2025 Budget Speech, the Minister responsible for Finance boasted of a transformative education agenda, and in the debate the Minister of Education praised the PPP/C’s record in the sector. Neither spoke of crisis. A government cannot celebrate success in one breath and plead constitutional necessity the next.

That contradiction matters, because this is not the first time “necessity” has been pressed into service to excuse constitutional shortcuts. In 2022, the appointment of Clifton Hicken as acting Commissioner of Police was defended on the basis that consultation with a Leader of the Opposition was impossible because none existed—an explanation accepted as exceptional at the time. Following the 2025 elections, the same rationale has been recycled, with Parliament once again allowed to remain incomplete so that constitutional consultation can be declared impossible.

The pattern extends beyond appointments. Nowhere is constitutional disregard more visible than in the administration of the Access to Information Act, enacted to give effect to the constitutional right to information. For years, the Commissioner of Information has failed to provide responses to requests or meaningful oversight, while reporting and enforcement have all but disappeared. This inaction has been tolerated rather than corrected—an omission made more troubling by the fact that the President himself holds the portfolio of Minister of Information. What is presented as bureaucratic failure is, in truth, constitutional neglect at the highest level.

Viewed together, these episodes point to a clear strategy by President Ali: constitutional constraints are not confronted but systematically weakened. When compliance is inconvenient (access to information), institutions are allowed to fail; when consultation is required (the election of the Leader of the Opposition), the conditions for it are deliberately left unmet; and when challenged, necessity is invoked after the fact (the Teaching Service Commission).

This is not governance; it is the erosion of the Constitution and the gutting of the rule of law.

The Teaching Service Commission appointments therefore raise more than a legal issue. They raise a democratic one. The failure to empower the opposition does more than narrow political inclusiveness; it contributes to what Nobel Prize–winning scholars describe in Why Nations Fail as the drift toward an extractive political system.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Mr. Hemdutt Kumar’s letter, “Removal of property tax is a victory for the wealthy and a betrayal of the poor” (Stabroek News, December 20, 2025), is theoretically sound and morally courageous. Predictably, critics will recycle the familiar claim that property tax is widely evaded and difficult to enforce. By that logic, Guyana should abandon almost every major tax. VAT fraud is endemic, income and corporation tax avoidance is widespread, and customs duties haemorrhage daily. Acknow-ledgment of weak enforcement is a call to strengthen administration – not a justification for capitulation.

Before looking at the history of the property tax which President Ali plans to scrap on individuals – ‘to axe the tax,’ as older heads might say – we need to note that “Individuals” in taxation includes professionals, unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and the majority of contractors. This is a huge body of taxpayers. And if the President does keep his promise, retaining it on companies will not have the simplistic effect assumed: all the “one man” and family companies have to do to avoid the remnants of the tax is to de-incorporate.  As was the case with the minimum tax.

Guyana once operated a harshly progressive tax system, with marginal income-tax rates reaching 70 percent, reinforced by the National Development Surcharge Levy (subsequently ruled as unconstitutional by the courts). Over time, that framework has been steadily dismantled. Dividends, then taxable, have been made tax-free, estate duty effectively abolished, capital gain is either exempted or taxed at a lower rate than tax on income. And now, property tax – the last meaningful levy on accumulated wealth – is to be removed.

Guyana’s current $40 million property-tax threshold is already generous by international standards. And in computing the tax payable, full deduction of debts and exempted certain assets is allowed. As Mr. Kumar points out, it already excludes the poor.

Other critics will point to countries that have abandoned wealth taxes. They need to tell the whole story. Where such taxes were removed, wealth concentration intensified. What the tax needs is reform, not abolition – least of all at a moment when oil-driven wealth concentration is accelerating. If the measure is implemented, $2 billion plus will go into the pockets of a not-so-new and rapidly expanding wealth class for whom ‘greed is good’ appears to be the governing mantra, a class that visibly includes ministers, their friends, and their families.

Without more, the repeal would also remove the obligation on taxpayers to itemise and declare their assets, leaving mandatory disclosure confined to income alone. And to make a bad situation worse, the country will bear those consequences through taxation, borrowings and drawdowns from the Natural Resource Fund.

I will be personal and direct. This repeal will save me millions of dollars annually. I do not need it. I did not ask for it, and it will make no difference to how I live. In none of the Budget submissions to which I have contributed over decades did I ever advocate for, or recommend, the removal of property tax. I hope the decision will be revisited. 

The Property Tax was one of the 1962 measures advocated by world famous welfare economist Dr. Nicholas Kaldor and warmly embraced by the late President Dr. Cheddi Jagan in the 1962 Budget. When the last remaining tax on accumulated wealth is removed, the signal is unmistakable. The burden shifts downward. To present this as “relief for all” is shallow and dishonest.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In a response to comments made by the Canadian High Commissioner on the final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission, President Irfaan Ali described the September 1st elections as “free and fair, beyond a shadow of doubt,” and that they were conducted “efficiently and reliably.” While the President is entitled to his view, he must appreciate that elections do not become credible merely because a participant proclaims them so.

Notably, the EU carefully avoided using the term “free and fair”, a descriptor which has been replaced by “credible”, when an Elections Observer Mission considers that an election meets basic democratic thresholds. Its report was professionally prepared, evidence based, each finding was supported by tables, graphs and charts based on thorough and objective observations and facts. By contrast, the President offered none. Ali’s own abuse of his office in the pre-election period was egregious and well documented. His party’s misuse of the State media, its apparatus and resources meticulously documented in the EU’s report, was evident to all.  

President Ali had no reservations when the EU Mission issued almost identical recommendations in 2020 – very, very few of which have been implemented. It is worth noting too, that despite being a constitutional body, GECOM is not subject to a dedicated financial or performance audit. This is an extraordinary omission for an institution that now absorbs billions annually and is dormant for the greatest part of five years.

It is equally difficult to reconcile claims of “efficiency” with an electoral system that is, by every measurable standard, the most expensive per voter in the world. Guyana continues to spend unprecedented sums to maintain an oversized electoral machinery, yet many of the structural weaknesses identified by both international and domestic observers after each elections remain uncorrected.

GECOM has unilaterally concluded that statutory provisions on election-expense reporting have “fallen into disuse.” In other words, GECOM, which should carry out the law, casually ignores and disregards it.

The voters’ list remains inflated by the names of persons long deceased, even as the law provides for continuous cleansing. The constitutional and statutory requirements regarding Commonwealth citizens have, by GECOM’s own admission, been wrongly applied, with the result that ineligible persons voted in the elections.

The WIN party, which had previously donated tens of millions of dollars to Ali’s PPP/C, encountered hindrances to their participation in the 2025 elections, once it became clear that it posed the greatest threat to the PPP/C.   

These are not markers of efficiency or credibility. They mark institutional drift, weak compliance with the law, and a tolerance for practices that heighten cost and undermine democracy. Public confidence is earned not through political declarations but through transparency, accountability, and the consistent application of the law.

The EU Mission’s report offers no endorsement of credibility, let alone free and fair. Its silence speaks louder than any political rhetoric or reassurance.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram