Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

The presidency is the most sacred office in our Republic – its occupant sworn to uphold the Constitution and to serve all the people without fear or favour. Under President Ali, that office has been diminished – through evasion, manipulation, and a style of governance that rewards loyalty over merit, secrecy over transparency, and partisanship over national unity. It is a presidency that serves first the Party, then its leaders, its loyalists, and finally, their families and friends.

The recent exchanges between President Ali and Azharuddin Mohamed are a symptom of the reliability of his (Ali’s) words and his personal credibility. When confronted with documented evidence – via WhatsApp messages – that he facilitated the undervaluation for customs purposes of a high-end vehicle, Ali ridiculed the source. Pressed further, he hid behind the standard “I cannot recall,” blaming it on receiving too many messages. Ali, a borderline Generation X and Y leader – who wants to position Guyana as a global IT and AI hub – expects Guyanese to believe he does not know that WhatsApp messages do not overlap but scroll, that they do not disappear but are stored in the Cloud. Is that the best President Ali can do?

But this evolving posture of duplicity and convenience, denial and indifference, is part of President Ali’s playbook. He campaigned on a promise to renegotiate the 2016 oil agreement – by far the worst in modern oil deals. Once elected, “unable to recall”, he hid behind the doctrine of sanctity of contract. His Party’s pledge to investigate the circumstances into that agreement, has morphed into a refusal to release the Clyde & Company report on the agreement. Groveling to his new masters, he refuses to exercise the government’s rights to apply ringfencing, enforce relinquishment, and conduct serious audits. Audits are delayed, cost claims go unchallenged and published information by the oil companies are deceptive and misleading. Is that truly what the President thinks Guyanese deserve?

And most disturbingly, the government refuses to disclose who issues tax certificates to the oil companies – allegedly used to claim foreign tax credits in the United States. This refusal shields the process from public scrutiny and makes the state complicit, perhaps even an accessory, in facilitating offshore tax evasion. Worse still, the recently passed Oil Spill Liability Bill completely ignores the environmental risks to our neighbours – including one waiting for an excuse to pounce, should an offshore spill affect its territory. Not to mention the government’s complete dismissal of citizens’ right to have a say in the Bill. Is that the responsible and patriotic act, President Ali?

At home, when twenty children perished in state custody at Mahdia, President Ali appointed a commission of inquiry designed not to pursue the truth, but to control the result. The government also quietly bought off an Amerindian child victim of serious sexual misconduct. And then had the audacity to declare – as he did just two days ago – that he would dedicate his life to lifting the children of Guyana. Does our President not realise that this smells of hypocrisy?  

His commitment to the administration of justice is no less duplicitous. His long and oft-repeated promise to address the confirmation of the Chancellor and Chief Justice is as clear a signal as any that judicial independence remains hostage to political expediency and subject to retribution and weaponisation. His tolerance for unprincipled and even lawless conduct is equally evident. His government openly rewards those who cross the floor and punishes those who dissent. The case of Dr. Tara Kissoon – who unlawfully overstayed her time in the National Assembly and was warmly welcomed into the PPP – is further evidence of the culture of reward for improper conduct. President did the same with Charrandass Persaud, who betrayed the APNU+AFC Government and was rewarded by Ali with a top-level diplomatic posting.

He is comfortable using public funds to pay officials not for what they do, but for what they are willing not to do. The Commissions of Information, Public Procurement, and Integrity are classic examples – offices reduced to sinecures, betraying their constitutional mandates and the public trust. Instead of embracing the rule of law, the President is content to reward donors of dark money to his campaign coffers, refusing to consider any form of campaign finance reform. His PPP/C operates entirely outside of any legal framework and is almost certainly in violation of anti-money laundering rules – as do the Opposition parties. In ignoble acts, he is at one with the opposition.

The structure of his administration is built not on law, but on favours and fear –  a deliberate strategy of reward and punishment. In his distorted economic order, the poor survive on occasional handouts of $100,000, while those with connections benefit to the tune of millions – through contracts, tax concessions and sweetheart deals. One example close to him is the Silica City project, which is not accounted for or disclosed anywhere in the national Budget or the public records. The project is run by the Ministry of Housing, of which he was once Minister and which has, since then, been mired in allegations of corruption. Let us not repeat the past.

The public has also taken note of the now-revealed relationship between President Ali and businessman Mohamed. But what began as concern over a personal association has evolved into something deeper. The episode exposed a culture of proximity and privilege -where access to the President silences scrutiny, stifles competition, and reaffirms that in Guyana, political interests and connections trump transparency. Through all this, the state-funded media -which falls under President Ali – remains closed to opposition, independent and civil society voices. Citizens are denied a platform for response, even as they fund the very institutions that attack and exclude them.

Perhaps most revealing is that President Ali was quite prepared to accept Mohamed’s largess until Mohamed announced political ambitions – exposing the transactional nature of Ali’s associations and improper motives.  

President Ali’s actions constitute a grave betrayal of the Guyanese public who gave him the privilege of being their leader. When concerns were raised over the nature and speed of his academic qualifications, the public chose to look past them. And when the APNU+AFC coalition attempted to subvert the electoral process in 2020, Guyanese of all backgrounds defended Ali’s constitutional right to assume office. That trust has been repaid with secrecy, arrogance, betrayal, and deception.

In an enlightened country driven by truth, principle and integrity, that betrayal should be cause for his resignation. By the same yardstick, he ought not to be re-elected. Unfortunately, the several persons I spoke with this past week have all expressed pessimism about the future of the country. September 1 will tell us whether those fears are well founded.

Yours faithfully, Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I strongly support Attorney-at-Law Melinda Janki’s appeal to President Irfaan Ali, as reported in yesterday’s Stabroek News, not to give presidential assent to the rushed Oil Pollution Prevention, Pre-paredness, Response and Responsibility Bill.

Ms. Janki, who regularly provides high-value public service to Guyana, provided a strong case on why the legislation contravenes Guyana’s international legal obligations and violates multiple constitutional provisions, particularly Article 149J. As she rightly pointed out, a catastrophic oil spill would result in tens of billions of dollars in costs.

The danger in this legislation is that like the 2016 Agreement, we can be walking into an existential trap of our own making. The oil companies have shown that they are not averse to shifting any costs and liabilities to Guyana, given half a chance. Already, we are bound by a fateful Stability Clause that runs until 2056, which states that we can improve terms for the oil companies, but if we attempt to reduce their economic benefits, they could take us to arbitration or settle with local officials.

Melinda’s call follows calls for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, and we know where that went. Speaker after speaker from the Government side made several outlandish statements that hardly inspired confidence. Yet, after the political theatre and the customary “buse-out” of the opposition, “who did not have the intelligence to read and understand the Bill”, the Speaker farcically called for a vote on the entire Bill.

The Bill creates a regulatory façade without providing the necessary scientific capacity, independent verification mechanisms, or dedicated funding required for effective implementation. As one critic noted, it is “form without substance.”

I join Ms. Janki in calling for President Ali to withhold his assent to this dangerously flawed legislation. However, I would advise her not to hold her breath waiting for a response – the President appears too busy to respond to citizens, even when the matter falls directly within his own portfolio, such as the Commis-sioner of Information.

I am yet to see what it would take for the President to operate respectfully with citizens and in the broader interest of the country.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I write to make an urgent appeal to the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister regarding the Oil Pollution Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Responsibility Bill 2025, tabled by the Prime Minister last Friday.

This legislation represents one of the most critical environmental and economic bills ever presented to our Parliament. The reliance of the national economy on a single sector or company has never before been greater – drawings from the NRF into the Consolidated Fund account for 50% of 2025 revenues. And that is only part of the total direct revenue from the oil-producing companies. Clearly, then, any oil spill could have enormous consequences: the emphasis should be on prevention rather than cleaning up.  That is what makes this Bill so important.

 My assessment of the Bill is that it has technical deficiencies and legal ambiguities that could undermine its effectiveness. For example, clause 21 is framed in overly broad language that may inadvertently invalidate standard parent company guarantees essential to international oil operations. The Bill also lacks specific technical standards for response capabilities, relying on undefined terms like “adequate response.” Most concerning, it provides no dedicated funding mechanism for Commission operations, effectively requiring taxpayers to subsidise preparedness for corporate environmental risks.

I therefore appeal to our leaders to:

Immediately refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Establish clear terms of reference for a comprehensive technical review.

Allow adequate time for stakeholder consultation and expert input.

Ensure that the Committee reports back with amendments before the Bill is returned to the National Assembly.

While I understand the urgency to establish regulatory frameworks, hasty passage of deficient legislation serves no one’s interests. We have seen, in the case of the Natural Resource Fund Act, the detrimental effects of rushing through critical legislation without adequate consultation and participation. The stakes are too high for anything less than the best efforts of the National Assembly and all Guyanese.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I write to share the latest information on Guyana’s dismal state of transparency and right to information.  On April 14, 2025, on behalf of a group of civil society organisations and individuals, I wrote the President, who holds the Portfolio for Information, requesting a meeting regarding the Office of the Commissioner of Information’s failures: no mandatory annual reports tabled, unanswered public information requests, and erosion of citizens’ constitutional right to information. A briefing note accompanied the letter.

There was no response to the letter, and therefore no meeting. To deny citizens the courtesy of a response is bad enough. To effectively refuse to discuss an issue of which you hold portfolio responsibility, and which is the oxygen of democracy and the essence of good governance, does a disservice to the Presi-dent’s Office. 

On 23rd April 2025, I sent a pre-action letter to Mr. Charles Ramson Snr., Commissioner of Information and the Minister of Natural Resources, reminding them of long-outstanding requests for information and indicating my intention to approach the Courts if they still refused my request. I received a response from Mr. Ramson that was dismissive, characterising my concerns as “transparently relentless, brazen alignment with the agenda-driven, political media malcontents.” He mocked citizens’ rights as a “self-induced myth of a constitutional right to information” and my concerns as “manicured spasms of delusional concern, opportunistic at best, but deceptively disruptive at worst.”

Rather than address his statutory failures, Ramson threatens that his office “will strenuously defend on its behalf, any mischievously contrived litigation, however authored” – an apparent attempt to intimidate citizens exercising their legal rights.

The irony is stark. This Office was established to facilitate the enjoyment of several constitutional rights, guaranteeing inclusive democracy and the right to information. Instead, it consumes tens of millions in public funds while producing nothing of value. It is highly disappointing that the President condones this flagrant mockery of transparency by his silence.

Having exhausted all reasonable avenues, I will shortly initiate legal proceedings to obtain the information I sought. The rule of law must be upheld, particularly by those sworn to administer it. Our group will soon resume its public campaign to obtain our rights.

I call on my fellow Guyanese to follow the example of a Trinidadian who, a couple of years ago, was confronted with a denial of access to information and who successfully pursued his case all the way to the Privy Council. I wonder whether the Law Lords silently asked themselves: what a backward culture that requires its citizens to resort to such extreme action.  

I am providing copies of all three letters referenced in this correspondence for transparency and public interest. They allow the public to judge the inadequacies of the official attitude and responses.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Two weeks ago, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (PC), the highest court of Trinidad and Tobago, handed down a ruling that affects the entire Region. The decision in Methanex Corporation v The Board of Inland Revenue of Trinidad and Tobago [2024] UKPC 6, raises difficult but long overdue questions about the weaknesses of CARICOM’s legal architecture, the aging 1994 CARICOM Double Tax-ation Agreement (the Agreement), and the troubling consequences of maintaining a bifurcated system of final appellate courts within the region.

At the heart of the case was a dispute between Trinidad and Tobago’s tax authorities and Methanex, a wholly owned Canadian-controlled enterprise that has routed its Carib-bean operations through a subsidiary incorporated in Barbados. Methanex claimed benefits under the 1994 Agreement, arguing that it was a resident of a CARICOM member state (Barbados) and therefore entitled to relief under the treaty. 

The Privy Council, taking a literal and formalistic reading of the treaty’s text, agreed. It ruled that the absence of a Limitation on Benefits clause, a principal purpose test, or any economic substance requirement meant that Methanex was entitled to treaty benefits. In doing so, it rejected a more modern, progressive purposive interpretation offered by the Trinidadian courts below, which had urged a reading of the Agreement in line with its objective of promoting regional economic integration.

While the ruling is legally defensible under the Agreement’s text, it reveals a deeper failure –  not of the judiciary or the legal profession, but of regional governance. The 1994 Agreement replaced a 1973 agreement that was more narrowly drawn and intended to operate as a closed treaty, available only to those genuinely resident and operating within the region. In contrast, the 1994 Agreement is now shown to function effectively as an open treaty, accessible to any person or entity formally subject to tax in a CARICOM member state, even if that connection is nominal or commercially artificial.

The Agreement has remained untouched for thirty-one years des-pite repeated warnings about its deficiencies. It lacks some of the modern safeguards in international tax treaties. Yet efforts to revise it have been met with institutional lethargy. CARICOM’s leadership has failed to initiate reform, and its economic affairs committees have not acted. Methanex has exposed and exploited the region’s tax base. Suriname is right not to subscribe to the Agree-ment in its present form.

The case is ripe with painful irony. It was brought by Trinidad and Tobago, which continues to reject the appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Methanex, by contrast, is incorporated in Barbados, which has embraced the CCJ. Yet, it is Trinidad’s preferred final court, the Privy Council, whose ruling will most benefit foreign-controlled companies seeking tax advantages at the entire region’s expense – including Trinidad’s. Most directly, the Privy Council overruled Trinidad’s Tax Court and its Court of Appeal. 

This contradiction extends to legal principles and the Privy Council as well. In 1976, in the Jamaican case, popularly referred to as Seramco, the PC embraced substance over form, a philosophy adopted later by the House of Lords in the famous Ramsay case. That is also Guyana’s approach, founded in separate judgments handed down by temporary Justices of Appeal Rafiq Khan and Dr. Arif Bulkan. In fact, substance over form has long been part of Guyana’s Income Tax Act (section 74). A further irony is that the Methanex decision does not bind the UK, where the substance over form principle was formally adopted in a landmark House of Lords case. 

Methanex signals a return to formalism, privileging nominal residence over commercial reality. The spirit of Seramco survives in theory but has been undermined in practice. 

Some may argue that companies like Methanex bring investment and employment to the region, and that legal certainty is essential. That is true. However, the issue is not whether tax treaties should exist or whether international companies are welcome. It is whether a multilateral regional treaty, explicitly intended to foster intra-regional economic integration, trade and investment, should be used to deliver tax advantages to third-country multinationals with no substantial commitment to the region’s development.

Indeed, in jurisdictions like Guyana and Barbados, Canadian investors are already covered by bilateral treaties with Canada. The availability of the CARICOM treaty as an additional option means they can choose whichever arrangement yields the most favourable tax outcome, effectively converting a regional integration instrument into a platform for treaty shopping.

If individual CARICOM states wish to offer tax relief to non-CARICOM jurisdictions, they can do so through bilateral treaties. That is a sovereign prerogative. But it is wholly inappropriate to use a regional framework designed for unity and shared prosperity as a tool of convenience for external actors. In this sense, the Methanex decision is not just about one company’s tax status. It is about the erosion of regionalism itself.

We are often told that treaty reform in CARICOM is difficult because it requires the elusive unanimity. But what we now have is unanimity of exposure. The Agreement makes every CARICOM state vulnerable to treaty shopping, base erosion, and the loss of tax revenues meant to fund public services and development goals.

CARICOM countries must respond to this decision. The 1994 CARICOM Agreement must be revised or supplemented by protocols that insert modern anti-abuse clauses. The CARICOM Secretariat must take the lead, and those states that support the CCJ must continue pressing for judicial coherence. But above all, we must restore the principle that our regional instruments serve regional interests.

We cannot afford two final courts, two tax philosophies, and one treaty that serves neither. The price of disunity is being paid in revenue lost, sovereignty diminished, and a regional project undermined by its own contradictions.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram