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 Information Blackout: Oil Transparency and the Failure of Access to Information in Guyana
Introduction
Guyana’s Constitution identifies access to information as a right – not a privilege. Yet, for a decade and more since the Access to Information Act was passed in 2011, this right has been treated with contempt. The Office of the Commissioner of Information’s ongoing obstructionism reflects more than a question of competence – it is a deliberate affront to transparency and accountability.
Last Sunday, the North American NGO, Oil and Gas Governance Network (OGGN) pleaded for information on the taxes the Government of Guyana paid for the oil companies operating in the Stabroek Block. In yesterday’s Stabroek News, civil society activist Danuta Radzik eloquently highlighted similar frustrations in attempting to access public information from the Environmental Protection Agency. These letters underscore how the barriers to information access extend beyond the oil sector to affect various aspects of civil society oversight and citizen engagement.
While these public demands were not made using the Access to Information Act, they highlight the frustrations and obstructions in obtaining basic information on matters of public interest. Not that OGGN or Danuta would have had better luck if they had. The Act had many weaknesses from its inception, but these pale compared to how it has been operationalised by its sole Commissioner, Charles Ramson, S.C.O.R, former Justice of the Court of Appeal and Attorney General under an earlier PPP/C Administration.
Dysfunction
Former Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman retained the British law firm to investigate the circumstances surrounding the signing of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement. I had managed to obtain the report, but critical appendices were missing. So, on 6th December 2021, I wrote to the Commissioner what should have been a straightforward request for information under the Access to Information Act 2011. In his acknowledgment, he advised that his Office would provide “an appropriate response”, subject to human and other resources.
Acting on the Commissioner’s oral advice, I later directed a letter to the Ministry concerned. Not having had a response for more than a year, I sent the Commissioner a formal request to the Commissioner of Information using the Form set out in the Act, along with a letter pointing out the Minister’s non-response. The Commissioner’s letter dated May 10, 2023, was a masterpiece of verbose evasion. Rather than providing the requested information, Justice Ramson, referring to me as Comrade, stated that an applicant “ought not to arrogate to himself the liberty of any ad hominem criticism of his statutory benefactor.”
Bizarre
This extraordinary and bizarre statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of public bodies – not as benefactors bestowing favours but as public servants charged with statutory duties. The letter further suggested that I should have found the information in “the Bar Review contemporaneous with its delivery” or in the Commissioner’s own published work, his “3rd Book, Metrics of Bar and Further access thereto.” Such an absurd evasion directly undermines the very purpose of the Access to Information Act. To date, I have still not received the information, suggesting that the Commissioner’s assurance that “appropriate action will be taken to accommodate your non-timeous request” was not serious.
Perhaps most troubling is the phantom-like nature of the Commissioner’s office itself. Although officially under the Office of the President, that office could not provide information on the location of the Commission of Information. When even the President’s Office cannot direct citizens to a statutorily created office, one must question how seriously the Act and the broader issue of transparency are taken. But that is not all.
The Commission’s financial aspects are equally concerning. Tens of millions of dollars are allocated annually in the national budget for the Office of the Commissioner, yet no financial accounting for these funds has ever been provided. The Access to Information Act requires the responsible Minister to table an annual report on the operation of the Act. The parliamentary records do not disclose even a single report having been submitted to Parliament since the Act’s inception.
Implications
The implications for oil and gas governance are profound. When citizens and civil society organizations like OGGN cannot access basic information about tax payments, production figures, or environmental compliance, confidence in the management of the national patrimony and accountability is severely eroded – especially in the absence of an independent Petroleum Commission.
What makes this situation particularly troubling is that the Access to Information Act was introduced with great fanfare and is still marketed as a pillar of governmental transparency. Yet in practice, it has become a barrier rather than a conduit for information flow. The Commissioner actively undermines transparency, using unnecessarily complex language that obfuscates rather than elucidates.
These issues – obfuscatory language, failure to provide requested information, inability to locate the physical office, and non-compliance with statutory reporting requirements – are unacceptable in a democratic society. Indeed, it is fair to say that the Office of the Commissioner of Information has become an embarrassment to both the Government and the country. Measured by value for money, the Office of the Commissioner of Information is zero out of one thousand!
Conclusion
The Act’s poor performance and operations vindicate the criticisms made by the national transparency body TIGI and others when it was first introduced. On the few occasions that it does meet, the National Assembly can find the time to pass some gravely inconsequential amendment Acts. Meanwhile, a law meant to guarantee transparency has been perverted into a mechanism of secrecy. This farce must end.
Parliament must immediately demand an accounting of the Commissioner’s budget and require compliance with the Act’s reporting obligations. If the Commissioner’s Office continues obstructing access to information, drastic, surgical measures must be taken. The government cannot claim to champion transparency while allowing this mockery to continue.
The Natural Resource Fund Debate: Getting the Law Wrong
Introduction
The exchange over Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund (NRF) involving Dr. Terrence Campbell, VP Bharrat Jagdeo and Dr. Ashni Singh has revealed troubling misunderstandings of our fiscal legal framework, not least from those who ought to know better. What began as a straightforward observation about the utility of the NRF Board and its Investment Committee has exposed fundamental questions about how the Administration interprets and implements critical legislation.
Vice President Jagdeo, rather than addressing the core issue raised by Campbell, dismissed Campbell by contrasting their backgrounds – though his portrayal of Campbell as privileged compared to his own East Coast roots backfired when Campbell reminded everyone of his Mahdia origins. Finance Minister Singh then peculiarly echoed this line about Campbell receiving a “schooling” from an honorary doctorate holder.
The constitutional and legal framework
But let us focus on the law, which both officials seem to have misread or misunderstood. The legal framework rests on three pillars:
First, contrary to the Minister’s claims, Article 216 of the Constitution does not restrict the deposit of revenues into the Consolidated Fund. In fact, it allows Parliament the flexibility to place funds into other accounts. If it did not, the Natural Resource Fund itself would be unconstitutional.
Second, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) defines public money and governs its management. While it creates strict rules about handling public funds, it also does not, and lawfully cannot, prevent placing money received into special or separate funds. Again, think of the Gold Board or the Forestry Commission, both of which receive public money.
Third, and most crucially, as Campbell pointed out, section 16(2) of the NRF Act explicitly requires all withdrawals (not just emergencies, as Jagdeo falsely claimed) to be used for national development priorities and disaster-related projects. This requirement creates a clear mandate for tracking and reporting – after all, how can a Parliamentarian, let alone a citizen, verify compliance without knowing the national development priorities.
Compounding the failings
The Hansard of the debate on the 2021 NRF Act tabled by the PPP/C to replace the Coalition’s 2019 Act of the same name adds another layer of concern. On the occasion of its debate in the National Assembly, the same Minister who attempted to disparage Campbell was the only speaker in a segment that lasted much less than an hour. Instead of putting on the national record and informing his colleagues of the virtues of its historic piece of legislation, the Minister, as has become his style, spent much of his time on political criticism rather than on substantive analysis of how the law would work. For legislation governing intergenerational wealth, this was a grave dereliction of duty and disregard of the National Assembly. The Act’s Explanatory Memorandum, which could have clarified these matters, was no better.
Until the courts definitively interpret section 16, citizens will argue endlessly about its meaning and intent. But one thing is clear: the law does not prevent the detailed tracking Campbell advocates. If anything, it requires it. The current structure allows for proper monitoring of oil revenues and NRF expenditure.
The way forward requires honest engagement with these legal provisions rather than attempts to distort and misrepresent them or dismiss those who raise valid questions. When our highest officials misread (or misrepresent) basic fiscal laws, it raises serious concerns about the governance of our oil wealth.
Conclusion
Future generations will judge us not just on how our generation spent the nation’s money but on how we built the systems to manage it. Their judgment on the PPP/C Administration will be harsh. An Administration that refused to send the Natural Resource Bill to a Select Committee, that rushed it through the Bill in minutes rather than hours, days or weeks, that puts in charge of the NRF a toothless board, that prefers to vest the regulatory oversight over the sector in one man with a predisposition to get his facts and interpretation wrong, should expect the harshest verdict from Guyanese.
