Dear Editor,

For a columnist who does not usually respond, Peeping Tom has spent the past several days doing little else. In each of his offerings he has attempted to address the points I raised concerning President Ali’s farm. Tom either considers the matter serious, or he is troubled by the implications of what I wrote. Either way, we are agreed that it is no small thing.

I am told that my analogy is false; that a farm is not a crime scene; that on my reasoning every owner of a refrigerator must account for himself. I have to admit, I did not see the one about the refrigerator coming. But since he has a problem with Phala, I offer an example with some notable parallels – Nkandla. That involved the homestead of South African President Jacob Zuma. There were no missing dollars; no currency in the furniture; no stolen money; no criminal proceeds; no suspicious transaction – all elements which Peeping Tom tells us are the indispensable threshold. What it had, on 13^th  December, 2011, was a complaint from a member of the public, asking the Public Protector, under an Act by that name, to establish whether a newspaper report was true. A citizen wanted to know if what was published in the press was accurate. Two years earlier, the Presidency had met a similar report with a denial that State finances were used. There was unsubstantiated explanation. There were no documents. The reader may find the arrangement familiar.

The Public Protector investigated anyway. She was not obliged to prove anything first; she was obliged to find out. What she found – that the President had knowingly derived undue benefit from a swimming pool, an amphitheatre, a cattle kraal and a chicken run built at the State’s expense, on works whose cost had escalated to over R215 million – was the product of the inquiry, not its precondition. Zuma did not accept it. It took the Constitutional Court to hold, unanimously, that her remedial action bound him. He repaid R7.81 million.

Now apply Peeping Tom’s test. In December 2011 there was no credible evidence at Nkandla – only a newspaper article and a citizen’s question. On his reasoning the Public Protector had no business lifting a finger, and nothing would ever have been repaid. Yet that same inquiry cleared Zuma on one count, accepting that he had spoken to Parliament in good faith and finding no breach of the ethics code on that count. That is what inquiries do – they exonerate as readily as they indict. It is the President’s friends, not his critics, who should want one, for an inquiry is the only thing that can convert an assurance into a finding. Instead, we are offered the assurance and denied the inquiry.

Nor is this my invention. In The Public Protector v Mail & Guardian Ltd 2011 (4) SA 420 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of a Public Protector’s report – not because he had investigated without evidence, but because he had not investigated at all. The argument made on his behalf will be familiar: that the journalist had produced no evidence contradicting the Director-General, had not shown why his word should be doubted, and that a man of high office could not be questioned merely because a journalist disbelieved him.

Nugent JA gave it short shrift. Truth and deceit, he said, know no status or occupation. The hallmark of that failed investigation was that responses were sought from people in high office and “recited without question as if they were fact”, and an investigator in that state of mind is no more than a spokesman. There is no justification, the Court added, for telling the public it must accept that nothing improper occurred merely because nobody has proved the contrary. The investigator is not there to decide whether an onus has been discharged. He is there to be sure.

The same Court said something else that Tom should read. The politicians who asked for that investigation had no independent knowledge of anything. They had read the newspaper. That was enough, for as the Court held, a request for an inquiry must not be scrutinised as if it were a pleading.

Tom is right that a farm is not the offence, and that the circumstances surrounding the object are what matter. That is my point exactly. The circumstances here are that twenty acres of State land were leased to a man who is now Head of State, by a man who is now his Vice President; that the acreage is disputed between the President and the Leader of the Opposition; that the financing, the approvals and the tax treatment rest on assertion alone; and that beyond the lease unearthed by this newspaper, the President has produced not a single document. Tom mistakes the asking for the alleging. He has done so in every column, and I begin to suspect it is not a mistake. Nor is he finished: several of my points remain untouched, and at his present rate we may look for them by the weekend. I only hope he is not crowding out the other Toms. I am told there is more than one.

And let me save him some trouble. If a letter should shortly appear over a name we have not met, making these same points in this same order – that questions are not evidence, that he who asserts must prove, that an inquiry is a fishing expedition – the reader will have read it already, and will know what he is reading. I say no more than that.

Tom tells us that institutions worthy of the name should pursue facts. On that we agree entirely. My suggestion is for the process to begin.

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In its column of Saturday July 11, Peeping Tom proceeds on a simplistic proposition. He argues that my call for a Commission of Inquiry into President Ali’s agricultural enterprise amounts to a “fishing expedition” because I have raised questions rather than produced evidence of wrongdoing. That is an attractive slogan. It is also a false premise.

He treats me as though I have accused the President of criminal conduct. I do no such thing. My position has been consistent. Where legitimate questions arise concerning the conduct of the holder of the highest constitutional office in the Republic, particularly where those questions relate to a substantial private enterprise operating in a sector directly affected by Government policy, those questions deserve independent verification. That is not an allegation of guilt. It is a constitutional principle.

In invoking concepts such as burden of proof and prima facie evidence, Peeping Tom conjures up a courtroom in a criminal trial. He is too clever not to recognise that the issue is accountability, not criminality. In doing so, he treats the President as though he were merely an ordinary businessman defending a private investment. Ali is no ordinary businessman. He is Head of State, Head of Government and Chairman of Cabinet. The Government over which he presides allocates State lands, formulates agricultural policy, grants tax concessions, administers environmental laws and exercises enormous executive authority. The standard of transparency expected of such an office-holder must necessarily be higher than that expected of private citizens.

Curiously, after devoting an entire column to my letter, Tom never addresses the questions themselves. He does not tell us how or when the additional lands were acquired, or the sources of his massive borrowings. Or whether all the necessary environmental approvals were obtained before development commenced. Or whether the President declared his personal interest before permanent tax concessions benefiting agriculture were introduced. Nor does he tell us of the financial implications of those concessions for the enterprise, the terms on which it was financed, or whether every statutory obligation has been fully discharged. Or whether his farm income, not being part of his “official emoluments”, is declared on his annual tax return, and taxes paid.

If Tom knows the answers, he should publish them. If he does not, he should still say whether he accepts that the Guyanese public has a right to the know.

Instead, he advances the remarkable proposition that because these questions remain unanswered, they should not be independently examined. That turns accountability on its head. He also suggests that because the President first acquired twenty acres some fifteen years ago, much of the controversy evaporates. It does not. The issue has never been the original twenty acres. It is the development of what is now a substantial agricultural enterprise by a sitting President exercising the highest executive authority in the State. The chronology answers none of the questions concerning the acquisition of the additional lands, the financing of the enterprise, the regulatory approvals, the tax concessions or the management of possible conflicts of interest.

Finally, Peeping Tom devotes considerable attention to explaining why a Commission of Inquiry may not be the appropriate mechanism. Reasonable people may differ on that question. If another genuinely independent process exists that can command public confidence and answer these questions transparently, I would welcome it.

My concern has never been the label attached to the investigation. It has always been the independence of the investigation. The President’s explanation deserves to be heard. It does not deserve to become the investigation, the evidence, the findings and the verdict.

In the new Guyana, where public office now carries unprecedented economic significance, the people of Guyana are entitled to nothing less.

 Christopher Ram

Independent Commission of Inquiry needed into President’s farm

ByStaff EditorThu, July 9 2026, 2:15 AM GMT-4

Dear Editor,

President Ali was assigned by CARICOM in 2022 to lead the regional effort to reduce the Community’s food import bill by 25% by 2025. That target was not achieved, and CARICOM has since shifted the horizon to 2030.

Earlier this year, in the first budget of his Ali’s second term, the Minister in the Office of the President announced the permanent removal of corporation tax on income from agriculture and agro-processing. No one can accuse our enterprising President of failing to embrace the region’s agricultural ambitions. If anything, he appears to have taken the assignment, shall we say, a bit too personally.

Indeed, while the rest of CARICOM struggled to reduce the region’s food import bill, our President was apparently busy reducing his own dependence on an extravagant presidential salary. He was quietly – very quietly – diversifying both the economy and, it would seem, his own income base. So quietly, in fact, that it took a lifelong friend and party financier, Azruddin Mohamed, to reveal the scale of the enterprise.

The achievements are impressive. Import substitution through herds of Blackbelly sheep from Barbados and halaal cattle from Brazil; eradication of the contraband import of chickens replaced by fattened birds from the Presidential Hatchery; bringing some 150 acres of idle land into productive use; and demonstrating that, in agriculture as elsewhere, some animals are more equal than others.

This is surely a case study waiting to be written. The University of Guyana’s School of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation could hardly ask for a better illustration of entrepreneurial achievement. The finance faculty might even consider a companion course: Building a Multi-Billion-Dollar Enterprise While Holding One of the Most Demanding Public Offices in the Country.

President Ali often speaks of making Guyana “world-class.” On that score, he may already have succeeded. It is no ordinary feat to lead CARICOM’s campaign to expand regional agriculture while simultaneously finding the time, energy and business acumen to develop what has become the country’s most talked-about private agricultural enterprise.

This is no small feat. In fact, Ali has now won for Guyana its first ever gold medal in multitasking an equivalent of Trump’s Peace Prize.

As he waves proudly to his friends, family and favourites before ascending the podium, here comes the crème de la crème of the Guyana press to ask our dearly beloved president to reflect on his incredible achievements in such a short time, on a fixed salary that is so low that Parliament decided to make it tax-free.  

As the applause dies away and the President prepares to mount the podium, the Guyana press corps edges forward.

“Congratulations, Mr. President. Before you celebrate your remarkable achievements, the Guyanese people would like you to help them understand just how you did it.

1. Mr. President, we understand that you acquired twenty acres of land during the Jagdeo presidency. Under whose administration did you acquire the remaining 130 acres which together comprise your agricultural enterprise, and what process was followed in making them available to you?

2. Were all the environmental approvals obtained before development commenced, and will you publish every permit issued in respect of the project?

3. Can you assure Guyanese that no Government agency gave your enterprise any treatment that would not have been available to any other farmer?

4. Your government has permanently removed corporation tax on agriculture and agro-processing. Given your own substantial interests in that sector, did you declare that interest and absent yourself from any discussions leading to that decision?

5. What is the estimated tax benefit that your enterprise will enjoy because of that measure, and do you accept that many Guyanese will regard the timing as, at the very least, remarkably convenient?

6. Your explanation is that the project was financed by bank loans. Will you authorise the publication of the loan agreements so that the public can judge the matter for itself?

7. Will you also publish the financial statements of the enterprise, together with evidence that all taxes, NIS contributions and other statutory obligations have been fully discharged?

8. Mr. President, you have repeatedly asked Guyanese to trust you. Given the controversies that have followed you throughout your public career, do you accept that many citizens believe trust now requires independent verification rather than personal assurances?

9. Finally, Mr. President, if you have nothing to hide, will you today announce an independent Commission of Inquiry with full powers to examine every aspect of this enterprise, and to publish its findings?

Thank you, Mr. President. Enjoy your medal, and the vast opportunities of fortune and fame from your thankful and appreciative country people.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In my Stabroek News column # 177 published yesterday reflecting on the journey of writing on Guyana’s oil and gas sector, I acknowledged several individuals and institutions that helped sustain the national conversation on petroleum governance. I regret, however, that I failed to acknowledge a media house that played an important role in bringing many of those issues to a wider audience.

Over the years Kaieteur News, under the leadership of its publisher Mr. Glenn Lall, frequently drew on several of my oil and gas columns as the basis for investigative reports and news stories. In doing so, the newspaper helped extend the reach of those analyses and placed matters relating to petroleum contracts, fiscal arrangements and transparency before a broader section of the Guyanese public.

Reporters such as Ms. Kiana Wilburg, Davina Bagot and their colleagues deserve particular recognition for the diligence with which they pursued those stories. I therefore owe and extend to them a personal apology.

With the closure of Stabroek News, the space for independent scrutiny of public policy inevitably narrows. The responsibility for informed and fearless journalism therefore becomes even more important. It is my sincere hope that media institutions, especially Kaieteur News, will continue to carry forward the task of informing the public and asking the difficult questions that democratic accountability requires.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

During the 2026 Budget debate in the National Assembly last week, Minister Deodat Indar stated that the report into the December 2023 Guyana Defence Force helicopter crash would not be released to the public, on the basis that the aircraft was engaged in a military operation. That assertion raises a discrete legal question: whether, as a matter of international aviation law or Guyana’s domestic law, the Minister’s position is legally justified.

The analysis therefore turns on the legal consequences of that characterisation. It requires consideration of the international framework governing state aircraft, particularly the Chicago Convention, and of the domestic legal regime governing access to official information, including the Constitution of Guyana and the Access to Information Act 2011. The central issue is whether either body of law supports the Minister’s conclusion that the report may not be disclosed.

Internationally, the Chicago Convention distinguishes between civilian aircraft and aircraft engaged in military service. Aircraft in military service are excluded from the Convention’s mandatory civil aviation accident-reporting regime. That exclusion, however, goes to obligation only. It does not prohibit disclosure, nor does it regulate access to information under domestic law.

The constitutional position is governed by Article 146 of the Constitution of Guyana, which protects freedom of expression and includes the freedom to receive information without interference. While that right may be limited in the interests of defence or public safety, any restriction must be reasonably required and capable of justification.

The Access to Information Act 2011 gives effect to that constitutional right. It recognises national security and military operations as grounds for exemption, but it does so on a qualified basis. The Act contemplates redaction and partial disclosure where necessary, not the blanket suppression of an entire report.

Five servicemen lost their lives in the December 2023 crash. Their families continue to seek closure. The helicopter bore civil aviation registration and was not engaged in combat. These factors engage a strong public interest in disclosure of the non-operational findings of the investigation.

A previous Senior Minister publicly committed to the release of the report. If the present position is that disclosure is now unlawful, that proposition must be established in law. Ministerial succession does not alter the legal obligations of the State.

The question is not whether sensitive military information may be protected, but whether the law permits the suppression of an entire investigation report; neither the Chicago Convention nor the Access to Information Act appears to support the Minister’s conclusion.

In my considered opinion, the law allows publication of the report, subject only to such limited and strictly necessary redaction as is required to protect legitimate national security interests. The public interest overwhelmingly favours disclosure.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram