Business & Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram
During the Committee of Supply stage of the 2026 Budget, Bishop Juan Edghill, Minister of Public Works, announced that Government is finalising negotiations to purchase the Berbice River Bridge and suggested that the acquisition will cost less than the projected toll subsidies between now and next year. That comparison may sound fiscally attractive. It is not the comparison that determines legality or prudence.
The more perplexing question is this: why is the State proposing to buy an asset that it is already scheduled to own? The concession granted to Berbice Bridge Company Inc. under the Berbice River Bridge Act expires in June 2027. It does not create a permanent private ownership that ends only with a buyout. Section 7(1)(a) provides that upon expiry of the Concession period, all of the Concessionaire’s right, title and interest in and to the Bridge revert to the Minister. The statutory architecture is clear – concession for a defined term, followed by mandatory reversion.
The Minister responsible for Public Works is the authority named in the Act to enter into and regulate the Concession. The legal position is therefore fixed by statute and administered by the very office now asserting a negotiated acquisition. Frankly, there is no apparent justification or benefit.
There are certain basic propositions which, I trust, are not in dispute. The Concession Agreement remains in force. It has not been terminated or abrogated. While the Coalition subsidised certain tolls, the PPP/C removed tolls in August 2025, compensating the Bridge Company with full payment for vehicles crossing the Bridge. The only change was the source of payment: motorists ceased paying tolls; taxpayers replaced that revenue stream.
Under the concession arrangement, the company is not entitled to keep every dollar generated by traffic. Toll revenue must first meet operating and maintenance costs and service the project debt. Only the agreed return constitutes its entitlement. In addition, the Concession requires the Bridge to be handed back in good condition at expiry. The obligation to maintain the asset until 2027 rests with the Concessionaire. It is not a deferred cost to the State.
Between now and 2027, therefore, the company’s entitlement is limited to its operating costs, debt servicing and its contractually defined return, net of its continuing maintenance obligations. When the Concession ends, no private right survives beyond that date.
The first analytical question is unavoidable: has the subsidy exceeded that net surplus? If it has not, taxpayers have merely replaced motorists as the payer. If it has, then public funds are enlarging the company’s economic position beyond what the Concession permits before expiry.
The second question concerns the proposed acquisition. The State will receive the Bridge in 2027. The only economic value to the Company remaining in 2026 is the limited net entitlement between now and expiry. Any purchase price must therefore correspond to that residual value. Payment beyond it is not payment for a continuing right; it is compensation for rights that terminate by law.
It is difficult to reconcile the Minister’s public explanation with this statutory framework. The explanation offered is inconsistent with both the Act and the Concession Agreement. If the Minister’s position is otherwise, he must now state it by reference to those documents.
Further concerns arise because oversight from the Ministry of Finance and the Audit Office has been conspicuously muted in relation to this project, despite the magnitude of the public funds involved. The subsidy has been significant. The proposed acquisition will also be significant. Yet there has been no public reconciliation of those payments against the Concessionaire’s remaining lawful entitlement before reversion.
Adding to public concerns is the company’s apparent discomfort with scrutiny. Over the years, efforts to examine its corporate filings were met with resistance and, at times, prohibitive charges, including a demand in the region of $50,000 for access to a single page of a corporate document. Engagements at the Registry of Companies did not always reflect the transparency contemplated under company law. These matters form part of the governance history against which the present proposal must be assessed.
Corporate governance is not cosmetic. When private interest and public resources meet, when public infrastructure is financed under a private concession, governance is not a choice: it is a precondition. The Concessionaire includes significant private shareholders. Given the well-known proximity between senior political actors and a principal financier of the Bridge, the absence of transparent arithmetic only heightens the need for full disclosure, and triggers suspicion. In such circumstances, precision is not optional; it is essential.
The Minister in this matter is not merely a political negotiator. He is the statutory custodian of the Concession. His authority derives from the Act. His powers are bound by it. His duty is fiduciary and it runs to the people of Guyana – not to political relationships, not to commercial familiarity and not to past allegiance.
Section 38 of the Agreement requires that certain steps should already have begun. It binds the Minister, the Government and importantly, the company. Any attempt to circumvent those will be unlawful, an abuse of public office and a breach of the minister’s duty.
He needs to change direction and do the right thing. Legally, he has no choice.