In his letter in the Stabroek News of 15 January 2025, Mr. Kit Nascimento unconvincingly emphasises that he is not writing on the Renegotiation issue on behalf of the government. Why protest that much, Kit? Editorial writers, columnists and letter writers on the matter have directed at the President, not the government, their profound dismay and concern at his reversal of an explicit promise to the Guyanese people to “review and renegotiate” the 2016 ExxonMobil PSA.
The letter employs Kit’s characteristic strategy of creating false narratives. Despite several matters that have come to light concerning the Agreement, he suggests that receiving some benefits from the current arrangement somehow invalidates the need for better terms. And that pursuing our explicit rights under Article 31.2 of the PSA would somehow violate the contract’s sanctity. This disingenuous writing style – attacking critics while avoiding the substance of their arguments – cannot obscure the fundamental need and justification for renegotiation.
But it is Kit’s concluding paragraph that is most revealing. The argument carefully constructed over the years about the “sanctity of contract” crumbles in a single paragraph. After several statements, letters and excuses by the President, his Vice President and numerous surrogates – some paid directly and others indirectly – why renegotiation would violate sacred principles and damage Guyana’s investment climate, Mr. Nascimento casually suggests that “the time may come” for renegotiation, but “it is certainly not now” because it would be “a
prescription for losing the elections.”
I feel for my friend Kit. His letter’s tortured logic and contradictory conclusions expose how difficult it has become, even for him, to defend the indefensible. In the end, his remarkable admission exposes the unvarnished truth. The President’s refusal to act in the people’s interest is not about contract sanctity or investment principles but about crude political expediency and electoral calculations. Such a feared loss will affect not only the politicians.
Readers owe Mr. Kit Nascimento a debt of gratitude for his accidental admissions. They reveal more than prudence might dictate.
The recent death of the Chinese rigger working on the Demerara Harbour Bridge is a tragic reminder of the systemic failure of the protection of workers in Guyana. That the immediate employer is a Chinese company makes it no less painful to the man’s relatives in faraway China. The company and the Ministry of Public Works as the procuring entity must answer questions and, as necessary, be held responsible for the tragic event.
Unfortunately, while laws like the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Coroners Act exist, enforcement of both is weak or non-existent, and gaps in accountability continue to leave workers dangerously exposed.
At the public level, procuring entities must ensure that safety measures and insurance coverage are fully included in their contracts, and that these are enforced. These requirements must also apply to direct, and indirect employers who contract third parties to perform construction jobs without requiring adequate insurance or enforcing safety protocols. This latter practice, engaged in by some very prominent companies in Guyana, shifts liability down the chain, leaving workers in legal jeopardy and their families without recourse when tragedies occur.
This systemic failure is not just about individual negligence; it reflects a broader neglect of social legislation and governance, and their consideration in the award of contracts. As public and private construction work takes place all over the country, this issue requires urgent attention.
I will examine these issues in greater detail in this coming Sunday’s Business and Economic Commentary column, focusing on legislative gaps, enforcement failures, and the urgent reforms needed to protect workers in Guyana. In the meanwhile, I hope that the process for the appointment of a Coroner to investigate the death of the man at the Bridge will begin as soon as possible.
Columns #’s 150 and 151 of my oil and gas feature Road to First Oil published in the Stabroek News, have generated a flurry of responses. On 05-01-25, the PNCR issued a statement responding to Column # 150. On the same day, the Stabroek News carried a letter by Mr Kit Nascimento responding to Column # 151 which accused President Irfaan Ali and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo of reneging on their pre-election commitment to renegotiate the “lopsided” 2016 Petroleum Agreement signed by the Granger Administration. One day later, there were two additional letters in the Stabroek News, including one by PPP/C MP Attorney-at-Law Mr. Sanjeev Datadin. With your kind permission, I wish to address the PNCR statement followed by the letters by Messrs. Datadin and Nascimento.
Column # 150 expressed my view that the PNCR’s leader’s failure “to articulate any coherent position on renegotiation, … to effectively challenge the government’s reversals, and apparent disinterest in the technical details of oil governance suggests a profound lack of understanding or a deliberate abdication of responsibility”. My conclusion was based on engagements with Mr. Norton as a guest on my TV programme Plain Talk and several polite exchanges.
In its response to my critique, the PNCR’s Statement lists earlier press statements on the Agreement referring to the Party’s 20-point agenda which it claims addresses renegotiation. That word does not appear anywhere in the agenda. Disappointingly, instead of confronting the lopsided Agreement head-on, the Statement retreats into vague promises about establishing an Advisory Team of professionals within 90 days of taking office. Quoting Mr. Norton’s generalities about “getting as much as possible” for Guyana hardly constitutes a coherent policy. Their defensiveness only confirms the validity of my comments on his weak opposition to the Agreement.
I remind Mr. Norton of my earlier advice: read Raphael Trotman’s book, ‘From Destiny to Prosperity’, and join him in calling for a Commission of Inquiry into the extension of the 1999 Agreement – into a 2016 Agreement – through a dubious Bridging Deed. Second, join the rest of Guyana in calling on the Ali Administration to immediately initiate renegotiation procedures under Article 32.1 of the Agreement.
Mr. Datadin
But for two grave errors in Mr. Datadin’s letter, his sarcasm and arrogance would disqualify his letter as worthy of a response. For someone who sneers at “second-rate texts,” his confusion between renegotiation and stability provisions in the Agreement is remarkable, and between renegotiation and setting aside – distinctions that should be elementary to an MP with an LLM in oil and gas law. His claim that public advocacy constitutes “duress” is equally bewildering. By Datadin’s logic, not only is Parliament set aside, but so too is the public.
That Mr. Datadin would misrepresent these basic principles while ingratiating himself with ExxonMobil by offering unsolicited but incorrect legal advice raises troubling questions about his motives. One wonders whether his eagerness to defend manifestly unfair terms stems from some form of ethical flexibility. Instead of conflating Local Content requirements with fair PSA terms, he could explain what the Granger administration surrendered in exchange for the renegotiation and amendment of 26th. April 2019. Or is it that with all his learning he is unaware of such amendment and modification?
Mr. Nascimento
Mr. Kit Nascimento writes not as an independent voice but as a paid public relations advisor to the President – a fact he conveniently omits. This is the same Mr. Nascimento who waged a relentless campaign against Cheddi and Janet Jagan throughout their lives, on one occasion cruelly twisting Dr. Jagan’s words to paint him as a racist – a history that makes his current defence of the PPP/C administration both ironic and telling. This context matters because it exposes how his positions are driven by political expedience rather than principle.
While Mr. Nascimento argues from his privileged position that ExxonMobil would refuse any request for renegotiation, he either deliberately misleads or displays stunning ignorance – the Agreement itself provides for renegotiation, and Exxon cannot refuse to engage in good-faith discussions. His confusion extends to defending contradictory positions: VP Jagdeo claims the renegotiation commitments never included the 2016 Agreement, while President Ali points to changed circumstances. They appear unable to synchronise their excuses.
General
This is not about point-scoring or abstract debate. It is about numbers and money, real money. With proven reserves of 13 to 15 billion barrels yet to be produced, securing a modest additional US$5 per barrel through improved terms — whether through royalty, profit share, or taxation – would generate between US$65 billion and US$75 billion in additional revenue for Guyana. This translates to US$81,250 – US$93,750 per citizen – money that would allow acceleration of physical and social infrastructure, higher salaries for our nurses, teachers, police and public servants, dignified old age pensions, and intergenerational savings.
To put this in perspective, the US$5 adjustment amounts to less than 12 US cents per gallon. The potential additional revenue represents schools unbuilt, hospitals unstaffed, infrastructure unrealised and savings for future generations forgone. These are the real stakes in this discussion.
The Guyanese people deserve better than recycled excuses and defeatist rhetoric. They deserve leaders who will fight for their interests, not cower behind geopolitical fears or blame predecessors. Until such leadership emerges, this debate will continue – because the people of Guyana expect their leaders to fight for their rights and for the billions being recklessly given up.
The President’s much-publicised $1 million donation to the Dharm Shala raises more questions than it answers, highlighting not generosity, but an embarrassing lack of substance in addressing the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.
Forget that we boast of being the fastest-growing economy, transforming Guyana into one of the wealthy nations in the world. Consider instead the reality at the Dharm Shala’s two facilities – one in Albouystown, Georgetown, and the other in Berbice -where approximately 60 permanent residents are cared for 365 days a year, alongside drop-in visitors. This translates to over 65,000 meals annually. The State’s $1 million will certainly not cover one meal per day per year for each resident and one wonders where the President expects the balance will come from. And this is before accommodation, clothing, caregiving, utilities, maintenance, and administrative costs.
This raises a barrage of questions. What were the President’s advisers thinking when they recommended a $1 million donation as a gesture of support in this season of caring and sharing? What exactly did they expect this sum to cover? A few months of electricity bills? Repairs to the aging building and leaking roof? Or a mere fraction of the costs for one day’s meals?
The glaring inadequacy of this token donation is further magnified by the media circus surrounding it. The newspaper coverage, complete with cameras and photo opportunities, seems worth more than the donation itself. Was this a genuine attempt to assist the poor and destitute or simply a photo opportunity cloaked as charity?
But a larger question remains: After more than 100 years of dedicated service by the Ramsaroop family, why is the Dharm Shala left to scrape together donations for survival? Why has successive government after government failed to provide the sustained support this institution desperately needs? Surely, it is time for the state to step in and assume responsibility for funding this national treasure, ensuring it is properly resourced to continue its vital mission with dignity and respect to the beneficiaries.
Instead of lauding the President’s token gesture, the Department of Public Information would do better to highlight the unique vision, sacrifices, and commitment of the Ramsaroop family, who have done what successive governments have failed to do – care for the most vulnerable among us without cost or publicity.
Five years after the first discovery of oil is more than opportune for the government to commit to integrating the Dharm Shala into the national welfare system, either through direct funding or meaningful annual subventions.
If a nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable, then this donation is an embarrassment and a disgrace. The poor of our country deserve better.
The government’s proposed amendments to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act (the Act) should cause concern among property owners, legal practitioners and citizens. While the Bill seeks to address specific issues, it fails to modernise the framework to respect the Constitution and reflect fairness, transparency, and equity.
Even though no individual property owner should be permitted to obstruct critical national development projects unreasonably, this legitimate concern must be balanced against the constitutional rights of citizens and principles of fair compensation. The solution lies not in maintaining an antiquated framework that undervalues private property rights, but in establishing a modern, equitable system that serves both public and private interests.
In my 22 March 2024 column in the Stabroek News “Time for a Fairer Compulsory Acquisition”, I advocated for positive reforms that balance development needs with property owners’ constitutional rights. This Bill represents the opposite of such reform, retaining and reinforcing outdated practices and failing to address the inherent inequities in compulsory acquisition.
The principal legislation is rooted in the misconception that “market value” without more represents fair compensation. Compulsory acquisition, by its very nature, deprives citizens of their property involuntarily. As such, compensation must reflect not just the property’s market value but the forced nature of the transaction, including the psychological pain of disposition. Fair compensation should include a premium—no less than 25% above market value – to account for this dispossession, a principle recognised in progressive jurisdictions worldwide, including India. A simple amendment to section 19 of the Act would address the problem.
In 1990, the formal role of the Chief Valuation Officer (CVO) in executing the application of the Act was officially eliminated. Yet, the Government has continued to present the CVO, cloaked with the air of officialdom, at meetings with citizens whose property it intends to acquire under the Act at deflated values. Since the CVO is a government employee, the perception of bias and impartiality is inescapable. Modern legislation across jurisdictions provides for a Board or Panel of Assessors for valuation purposes.
A caring Government would not make a 1914 legislation more oppressive and backward but would embrace reforms that ensure:
Compensation includes a compulsory acquisition premium above market value.
Valuations are conducted transparently and independently of State influence.
Public confidence is restored in the fairness of the process.
Transparency and public disclosure.
As Guyana undergoes transformative economic development, we must ensure that national progress does not come at the cost of citizens’ rights. The Bill represents a crude and cynical reaction by the executive to a ruling by a judge of the High Court against the Government in a compulsory acquisition case. If there is a measure of perverse fairness in this retrograde step, its victims will be government supporters and non-supporters.
If that is not bad enough, it appears to be an attempt by the Executive to override a first-instance court decision, bypassing the normal appellate process. More troubling still is the possibility that this legislation could be applied retroactively to matters already before the Courts. Such an approach strikes at the heart of the rule of law and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It sets a dangerous precedent where dissatisfied with judicial decisions, the Executive might routinely resort to legislative amendments rather than pursuing proper legal appeals.
