Deported Into Limbo: The United States and Mexico Are Abandoning People to Suffer and Die

/0 Comments/in , /by

Deported Into Limbo:

The United States and Mexico Are Abandoning People to Suffer and Die

A Human Rights Watch report has laid bare a moral catastrophe. Now someone must be held accountable.

Let us be precise about what is happening at the intersection of American immigration enforcement and Mexican indifference: elderly men and women — many of them sick, many of them long settled in the United States — are being flown to a country they do not know, stripped of their documents, and left on the street to die. This is not hyperbole. This is policy.

A new Human Rights Watch investigation, “Casting Us Aside to Die,” documents in exhaustive, damning detail how the Trump administration has deported more than 4,300 Cuban nationals to Mexico between January 2025 and March 2026 — part of a broader transfer of over 18,000 third-country nationals. These are not abstract numbers. These are grandparents. These are people with dialysis appointments and insulin prescriptions. These are human beings who spent decades building lives in America, paying taxes, raising children, burying parents — people who believed, however naively, that a life lived in good faith offered some measure of protection.

It offers none. Not anymore.

This Is Not Deportation. It Is Abandonment.

There is a word for what governments do when they remove someone from a country to which they have no legal connection, in which they have no family, no language, no resources, and no rights. That word is dumping. The Trump administration has constructed, with bureaucratic precision, a system for dumping human beings.

Cuba frequently refuses to accept its own citizens back. So rather than confront that diplomatic problem, Washington has found a workaround: ship people to Mexico instead, declare the deportation complete, and move on. Mexico, for its shameful part, has accepted these transfers without demanding a single meaningful protection in return. The result is a population of people in permanent legal limbo — no status in Mexico, no path back to the United States, no way forward to Cuba — stateless in everything but name, marooned in cities like Tapachula and Villahermosa that are already buckling under the weight of violence and poverty.

These are not sanctuary cities. They are dumping grounds.

The “Public Safety” Justification Is a Lie

The administration and its defenders will reach, as they always reach, for the public safety argument. They will invoke criminals and threats and the sovereign right to protect the homeland.

The data obliterates this case before it can be made.

Only 16 percent of those deported had convictions for violent offenses. More than a quarter — over 25 percent — had no criminal record whatsoever. They were deported not because they were dangerous, but because they were deportable — a legal category that, under this administration, has been stretched to justify nearly anything. When you strip away the rhetoric, what remains is a policy that targets the old, the sick, and the vulnerable with the same indiscriminate sweep it applies to anyone else. There is no meaningful individual review. There is no proportionality. There is only the machinery of removal, grinding forward.

One deported Cuban, elderly and stranded, put it with devastating plainness: “There’s no help. We can’t work because we don’t have papers. They don’t give us anything… How are we supposed to eat, to pay rent?”

There is no answer to that question. That is the point. The policy is not designed to answer it.

Mexico Must Stop Playing Innocent

Washington bears primary responsibility for this catastrophe — but it does not bear it alone. The Mexican government has been a willing accomplice, quietly accepting transfer after transfer while providing deportees with nothing: no shelter, no medical access, no documentation, no legal pathway, no plan. Mexican officials have allowed their southern border cities to become warehouses for people discarded by a more powerful neighbor, and they have done so without protest, without negotiation, and without shame.

This is a bilateral failure — and the Mexican government’s studied passivity makes it a participant, not merely a bystander. Accepting these transfers while offering no durable protection is not neutrality. It is complicity dressed up as diplomacy.

Mexico must demand — and the United States must provide — transparent legal agreements before any third-country transfer occurs. Anything less is a handshake over a mass abandonment.

What Must Happen Now

The remedies are not complicated. They require only political will, which is precisely what is absent.

The United States must immediately reinstate individualized review for every deportation case involving third-country transfer. Every person facing removal to a country they have no connection to must have access to a protection screening, legal counsel, and a genuine opportunity to contest their removal. Anything less is a violation of domestic due process guarantees and international legal obligations the United States has formally accepted and is now casually discarding.

Mexico must provide immediate humanitarian relief to those already stranded — emergency shelter, medical care, identity documentation, and a real pathway to legal regularization. Receiving these individuals and then leaving them to sleep in parks outside hospitals is not migration management. It is cruelty with paperwork.

And the international community — human rights bodies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, allied governments — must refuse to look away. When two governments conspire through action and inaction to strand thousands of elderly, medically vulnerable people in indefinite limbo, the silence of the international community is not neutrality. It is permission.

History Will Not Be Kind

There is a particular kind of moral cowardice in policies designed to make suffering invisible — to move people far enough away that their desperation never becomes a domestic political problem. That is what this is. These Cubans are not being sent home. They are being sent away: away from American news cameras, away from American courts, away from American conscience.

They are being cast aside to die. Some of them already have.

The United States government is doing this in the name of American citizens. The Mexican government is enabling it in the name of diplomatic accommodation. And unless pressure — sustained, furious, and organized — is brought to bear on both capitals, it will continue.

This is not a migration policy failure. It is a human rights emergency, authored by governments that know exactly what they are doing and have decided, with full deliberation, to do it anyway. Call it what it is. Demand they stop.

 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—

FREEDOM DELAYED

/0 Comments/in /by

Freedom Delayed:

The Unfinished Promise of Independence

OPINION

BY: JAI LALL

This country of many waters and races is observing its 60th independence anniversary since the British flag, the Union Jack, was lowered at midnight on the 25th May 1966 and the Guyana flag, the Golden Arrowhead, was raised on the 26th May 1966. Those were the days when sugar was king of the land and nicknamed “gold dust.” Today, oil is the queen of the sea, and its pet name is “liquid gold.” Uniquely, Guyanese are enjoying back-to-back holidays with Eid Al-Adha, the following day.

From the inception, “gold” cradled the foundation for Guyana’s name, built its growth for fame, and its “discovery” to develop its fortune. The searching, sighting, visiting, landing, settling, and colonizing of “Guiana” was as a quest to find the “Golden City of El Dorado,” with a famous myth that villages with houses were made of gold.

British Guiana has metamorphosed from a British colony ruled previously by the Dutch and invariably occupied by the French and Spanish, thus tainted with a European intrusion, to a sovereign state known as Guyana and then to a Republic, now referenced to as “The Co-operative Republic of Guyana.” But, from inception, it was the original home of the Indigenous inhabitants which comprised a number of different tribes but popularly and collectively referred to as the “Amerindians,” who populated the hinterland, in “The Land of Many Waters.”

After the arrival of the European pioneers, they pulverized the land to reap and rape for profits. This was followed by the infusion of African slaves, the indentured Indian laborers and a small influx of Portuguese and Chinese. The eventual co-habitation of the six races, reproduced a seventh race genesis as a result from “cross-pollination.”

From exploration to exploitation, a new community evolved from this Guyanese society to rise to a significant level from a breeding ground, to birth another race of “mixed races” and “crossbreeds” identified as “dougla.” Guyanese are still in disbelief but cannot forget Burnham’s evil intention of the real purpose behind the formation of National Service. Having set aside our diversified background, known as Guyanese, now, we are forecasting an identity of “One People.”

Mind you, most Guyanese are wary of the comparable combination of the citizens’ contrasting cultures, which cement a comfortable compatibility not to compromise the nation’s goal of gluing as “One Nation.”

But differences and indifferences with options and opinions, actions and activities and our way of life of why we live how we live, will always circumvent any given standard for commonality.

Despite any great purpose, there are those who will obviate any good intention. The ruling Government led by a roaring President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali and the popular People’s Progress Party/Civic, is perpetually pronouncing on their productive performances and the profitable achievements which will permeate a promenade to produce the aspiration of working together to mold a “One Destiny,” paving a pampered path with peace, progress and prosperity.

Notwithstanding this erudite motto with the classic slogan, “One People, One Nation, One Destiny,” these exponential factors bear an existential quest to resolve an equation for:

A vision not to look through the lens of ethnicity as a redress for liberty; a promise to forgo using violence to instigate disruption to address equality; and a challenge to work together to bridge harmony in fraternity against racism.

Having traversed the treacherous journey from forced exits to coerced exits, the wind changed direction from slavery to freedom and then, indentureship to liberation. The tide having sailed in the colonizers, changed course from independence to a Republican state. In the travesty for overnight self-governance, we trailed on a trial of conspired deception to avoid alleged

Communism. The turmoiled water provided a storm to brew dictatorship before being relieved of socialism to rely on capitalism.

Political leaders from the past have manipulated and mutilated the richness of this land via disgusting measures, deceptive means and disguising intentions, denying the people the true results from the ballot boxes with the aid of the British and American cooperation, Guyanese collation and conspirators’ collaboration controlling rigged elections.

Nationalization has seen the rude awakening of a crude, new leader imitating the image of a “white, colonial master,” ashamed of his “innate inhibitions.”

A man who professed to be a General, rode on a horse with a cigar as his horse trotted along the road in his “Hope” estate, ordering his “serfs” to obey his command or, bear the brunt of his whip as he unleashed violence, vindication and vengeance! A man who can make Satan cry and his sister weep, was one to fear and not fathom.

The man who thought he would rule for life, aligned himself with Jim Jones and the 918 mass-murders in Jonestown, Rabbi Washington’s House of Israel and the murder of Father Darke and was the intellectual architect who engineered WPA’s Dr. Walter Rodney’s murder. But those sinister events played second fiddle to the horror of the “Wismar Massacre,” the burning and looting in Georgetown on Black Friday and the harsh 135 and 80 days GAWU strikes. The “best orator” stood silent to speak against indignity, injustice and insanity!

Guyana’s independence gave us poverty, nakedness and corruption, all enwrapped, enveloped and entrapped in the name of freedom for the small man to enter the dream of being the real man while the privileged, the protected and the prioritized ones were permitted to enjoy the platter from the luxury of a golden plate!

The infancy stage of Guyana’s freedom fermented a mass exodus of migration from all races, banning of essential food items, the creation of long and lasting “Guy lines,” the freezing of wages, the ‘mistreatment’ of females workers, the use of workers and materials for personal gains, the misuse of the armed forces, the evaporation of foreign currency, the abuse of state properties, and to crown it all, the PNC Party card’s usage as a Passport to freedom, freebies and feasts for the few, fortunate figures!

“Independence did not immediately free all and sundry. The fight for real freedom continues as, hopefully, will this article”. 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

Drones Above, Darkness Below

/0 Comments/in , /by

Drones Above, 

Darkness Below

 

  A government that can choreograph spectacle should be able to deliver services. Guyana’s real crisis is not a shortage of celebration, but a shortage of competence.

Guyana is being invited to celebrate lights in the sky while too many of its citizens continue to struggle with the absence of reliable lights on the ground. That is the paradox of this moment: a government eager to stage spectacle, yet far less convincing when it comes to delivering the basic services that make daily life bearable.

There is nothing wrong with a national celebration. A country should mark its milestones with pride. But celebration becomes offensive when it is used to distract from dysfunction, when choreographed beauty is deployed to mask administrative failure, and when the people are expected to applaud while they are still trapped in the consequences of neglect.

The drone display may have dazzled the eye, but it did not dry a flooded street, unclog a drain, or ease the hardship of families whose yards and communities remain waterlogged after every serious rainfall. It did not restore confidence in drainage maintenance or repair the long-standing neglect that has turned flooding into a recurring feature of life for too many Guyanese.

And then there is GPL — or rather, the lack of dependable light from GPL. Here lies the cruel irony. The state can summon drones to paint patterns in the night sky, but it cannot consistently ensure that homes, businesses, and neighborhoods are properly served by the public utility people depend on every day. One is engineered for applause. The other is supposed to be basic governance. 

Yet in Guyana, the spectacle shines more brightly than the service.

That is why the contrast matters. It reveals a government more comfortable with symbolism than with substance, more interested in presentation than performance. Drone lights are temporary, theatrical, and forgettable. Reliable electricity, functional drainage, and passable roads are not luxuries. They are the foundation of a civilized society. When those fail, no amount of pageantry can persuade people that they are living under competent leadership.

A serious administration would understand that the true measure of progress is not how well it can stage a celebration, but how consistently it can improve the lives of ordinary citizens. It would know that the real test of power is not the ability to put on a show, but the discipline to maintain drains, clear canals, repair roads, strengthen utilities, and protect communities from preventable hardship.

Instead, Guyanese are too often told to look up while they are forced to look down. Up at the drones. Down at the floodwater. Up at the spectacle. Down at the stagnation. Up at the promise of a modern nation. Down at the reality of services that remain unreliable and communities that remain neglected.

This is not a matter of optics alone. It is a matter of priorities. 

A government that can choreograph lights in the sky should be able to guarantee lights in the homes of its people. A state that can fund spectacle should be able to fund service. A leadership that celebrates national progress must first prove that it can deliver the basics without turning every rainy season into a crisis.

Until that happens, the paradox will remain impossible to ignore. The drones will glow overhead. GPL will continue to symbolize the frustration below. And ordinary Guyanese will be left to wonder why their country can illuminate the night for a celebration but not consistently light the lives of the people who make that nation real.

Guyana does not need more theatrical light shows; it needs dependable light, dependable drainage, and dependable leadership.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

A LIFE IN SERVICE TO THE NATION.

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN   |SPECIAL FEATURE 

 

THE 592 GUARDIAN

SPECIAL FEATURE •  GUYANA INDEPENDENCE EDITION •  JUNE 2026

A LIFE IN SERVICE TO THE NATION

Honoring the Diplomatic Brilliance, Corporate Mastery, and Lifelong Patriotism of

Dr. Shamir Andrew Ally

Ph.D.  •  MBA  •  BBA  •  FAIA (UK)  •  DTM

Scholar • Financial Executive • Ambassador • Global Citizen

To be honored at the Guyana Independence Ball –New York City • Saturday, June 27,2026

There are men and women who serve their nation from a sense of obligation. And then there are those who serve from a sense of destiny—who look at every degree earned, every corporation turned around, every classroom inspired, and see not personal achievement, but tools to be laid at the feet of a people and a republic. Dr. Shamir Andrew Ally belongs emphatically and irrevocably to the latter company.

As the Guyanese diaspora gathers in New York for the prestigious annual Independence Ball on Saturday, June 27th , the spotlight falls on this remarkable son of the soil—a scholar, corporate titan, international diplomat, academic pioneer, and global thought leader whose career spans six decades, five continents, and 84 countries. To honor Dr. Ally is to honor the very spirit of what Guyana can produce when ambition meets integrity and personal success is fused with national purpose.

The 592 Guardian presents this comprehensive tribute not merely as a record of titles held or positions occupied, but as a chronicle of a life lived in full—in boardrooms and embassies, in lecture halls and presidential libraries, in the oil-rich corridors of the Middle East and the quiet streets of Georgetown where it all began.

INTRODUCTION

From the Red Earth of Providence

The Village That Forged a Statesman

Favorite Quote

“Service to Humanity is the Best Work of Life.”

Before the ambassadorial credentials, the Wall Street boardrooms, the Gulf-state negotiations, and the Guinness World Records—there was Providence. Providence Sugar Estate, East Bank Demerara: red earth roads and the warm, dense smell of cane under a Guyanese sun; logie row houses where an entire community lived shoulder to shoulder and raised its children as one. It is here, in this particular soil, that the story of Dr. Shamir Andrew Ally truly begins.

He was born the first child of Soharab Ally—shop owner and pharmacist at Providence Estate Hospital—and his mother, Bebi Rahana. The Ally family grocery shop, set within the logies, was more than a place of commerce; it was a gathering point, a pulse of the community’s daily life. From his earliest years, Dr. Ally observed what it meant to be of service to a people: his father dispensing medicine and provisions alike, his mother holding the warmth of home steady. The values of that shop—reliability, generosity, dignity in every transaction—would travel with him to every office and every continent that followed. In time, the family moved to a modern residence at 7 Public Road, Providence, East Bank Demerara, but the logie foundations were already set, permanent and deep.

Dr. Ally childhood home

Providence Estate taught him something no university curriculum can fully convey that greatness is rooted in community. Neighbors shared what little they had without keeping score. Elders settled disputes and dispensed wisdom in the cool shade of mango, tamarind, genip, soursop, golden apple, cherry, guava, jamoon, gooseberry, and sugar apple trees—a natural parliament of the village, convened under branches rather than beneath official seals. There was a collective, unspoken covenant that every child mattered, that no one’s potential belonged to them alone. It was a conviction that would later animate every textbook Dr. Ally donated, every scholarship he championed, every development grant he fought to secure.

His formal education unfolded at Wilson’s Preparatory and Central High Schools—institutions that shaped not merely his mind but his character. Wilson’s instilled the foundational trinity of discipline, rigorous education, and intellectual curiosity. Central High expanded the horizon: it was there he encountered the power of ideas as instruments of change, the dignity embedded in honest labor, and the concept of duty to something larger than the self. These were not abstractions taught from a textbook; they were lessons absorbed from teachers who demanded excellence because they believed their students were capable of it—and who understood that belief, in itself, is a form of investment.

Those years live in the body as much as the memory: the sound of rain hammering zinc rooftops; the thwack of a cricket ball on a road wicket as evening gathered; the smoke and laughter of cookouts in the back-dams where community was not a concept but a daily practice. They live in the voices of the teachers who refused to let a single student believe that geography or circumstance determined destiny. It was an education conducted simultaneously inside the classroom and outside it—in the estate roads, the village yards, the shared kitchens, and the long conversations under those fruit trees.

From those foundations, Dr. Ally carried his formation to the University of Guyana, where he completed the Diploma in Management Program—the bridge between the village that raised him and the world he would go on to shape. Every institution he would later attend—Adelphi University, Walden University, the Association of International Accountants in the United Kingdom—was built upon a base of values poured in Providence, reinforced in the classrooms of Wilson’s and Central High, and tested in the practical life of Georgetown’s commercial and civic arena.

It is that journey—from the red earth and the logie row houses to the halls of power and the pages of international history—that gives Dr. Ally’s life its particular resonance and authority. He did not arrive at his convictions through theory. He arrived at them through Providence. And the conviction he carries, the one that has guided every decision across six decades of service, remains the same one forged in that estate community:

 

Guyana’s true wealth is its people, and service is the debt we owe to the place that raised us.

PART I: THE CRUCIBLE OF NATION-BUILDING — Guyana, 1964–1979

To understand the diplomat who would one day secure historic multi-million-dollar agreements in the Middle East, one must return to the streets and institutions of Georgetown in the years immediately following Guyana’s independence. Between 1964 and 1979, the young Dr. Ally was not a spectator to history—he was a participant in the foundational machinery of the new republic.

 

He served as Administrative Assistant to the legendary R.B. Gajraj—Lord Mayor of Georgetown, Speaker of Parliament, and CEO of H.B. Gajraj—learning the levers of civic power at the elbow of one of the nation’s towering figures. This was his first postgraduate school: not a university campus, but the living, breathing engine of Guyanese governance.

During this formative fifteen-year period, Dr. Ally’s footprint expanded across the full architecture of Guyanese commercial and civic life:

  • Company Secretary and Accountant for Booker Lithographic & Boxmakers Ltd. (later Guyana Lithographic Co. Ltd.), and Secretary/Director/Accountant of the Guyana Lithographic Co-operative Credit Union—building the cooperative economic architecture of the new nation from within.
  • Selected as a Member of the elite Guyana Financial Advisory Team tasked with negotiating and executing the national acquisition of Booker Holdings—a watershed moment in Guyana’s economic sovereignty and self-determination.
  • Director of the National Lotteries; Director of Guyana Cooperative Insurance Services; Deputy Chairman of the Board of Governors for Kuru Kuru Cooperative College; and General Manager of the powerhouse Gafoors Group of Companies.
  • Civic architect and connector: President of the Central Demerara Lions Club; Vice President of the Georgetown Jaycees; President of the Georgetown Toastmasters Club; and, for seven years, President of the Twinning Association of Georgetown—personally leading annual diplomatic delegations to Ottawa, Canada, and hosting reciprocal delegations from Ottawa and Lusaka, Zambia, in a forerunner of the municipal diplomacy he would later practice on the world stage.

These were not ceremonial roles. They were the proving grounds of a leader who understood that national service demanded technical mastery, financial discipline, and the courage to act at pivotal moments in a young nation’s story.

PART II: THE FINANCIAL ALCHEMIST — Wall Street and the Corporate World

When Dr. Ally departed for the United States, he carried with him not the hunger of an immigrant seeking personal fortune, but the ambition of a man who understood that the most dangerous thing a developing nation can lack is a corps of world-class financial minds. He was determined to become one.

His academic pursuit was systematic and relentless. He earned a Bachelor of Business Administration and an MBA from Adelphi University, followed by a Ph.D. in Administration and Management from Walden University (in association with Indiana University)—a doctoral dissertation of 373 pages focused on restructuring CARICOM for the 21st century through regional economic integration. To that he added the Fellow of the Association of International Accountants (FAIA) designation from the United Kingdom, a grueling 16-examination benchmark equivalent to a CPA or CMA, demonstrating that his credentials were not the product of convenience but of rigorous, competitive pursuit.

For 27 years, Dr. Ally operated at the apex of American corporate finance—not as a middle manager, but as Controller and Chief Financial Officer of major publicly listed technology and manufacturing companies on NASDAQ, NYSE, and AMEX, including Acrodyne Industries, Veeco-UPA Technology, and Porta Systems Corp. The results he delivered were not incremental. He engineered rapid financial reporting turnarounds, reducing closing cycles to as few as three to five business days, and delivered over $31 million in cumulative annual cost savings across his major corporate tenures—a figure that stands as one of the most concrete demonstrations of executive capability in the Guyanese diaspora’s professional history.

His American career also included a notable year (1994–1995) as a Federal Agent with the Internal Revenue Service in New York, where he applied his command of Title 26 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code to enforce corporate tax compliance at the highest levels—a role that speaks to a moral seriousness about financial governance that would define his diplomatic tenure a generation later.

PART III: THE DIPLOMAT — Kuwait, the Middle East, and the US$950 Million Legacy

When Dr. Ally was appointed Guyana’s Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Guyana Office for Investment (GO-Invest) in 2016, it was a recognition that Guyana’s investment story needed to be told with both passion and precision. When he was subsequently appointed Guyana’s Second Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the State of Kuwait—presenting his credentials to the Amir in March 2017—he carried with him not the typical diplomat’s portfolio of protocol and pleasantries, but the balance sheet of a CFO and the conviction of a patriot.

His signature framework— “Show, Tell, & Know Guyana”—transformed the Guyanese Embassy in Kuwait City from a passive outpost into a high-octane investment promotion hub. The results were historic.

The US$50.7 Million Debt Write-Off

Through sustained, skillful negotiation, Dr. Ally secured a landmark bilateral agreement in which the State of Kuwait formally forgave US$50.7 million of Guyanese debt—a single stroke of financial diplomacy that removed a significant burden from the national treasury and repositioned Guyana as a trusted, respected partner in the Gulf region.

The US$900 Million Islamic Development Bank Portfolio

Serving concurrently as Guyana’s First Alternate Governor to the Islamic Development Bank (Is DB) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Dr. Ally operated with rare dual authority—representing Guyana in both bilateral and multilateral arenas simultaneously. It was in this capacity that he orchestrated a US$900 million portfolio of grants and loans from the Is DB for critical Guyanese infrastructure and national development—an injection of capital unmatched in the history of Guyana’s multilateral financing relationships. These were not promises or letters of intent. They were secured commitments, the product of a man who understood both the technical language of development finance and the personal relationships required to translate proposals into signed agreements.

The Guinness World Record and the Art of Cultural Diplomacy

In January 2020, Dr. Ally demonstrated that diplomacy need not be confined to conference rooms. He led the Guyana Embassy to a Guinness World Record for the “Most Stickers on a Car” (41,543 stickers) at Kuwait Motor Town—an initiative that captured international headlines while fusing environmental recycling advocacy with cultural diplomacy in a way that cemented Guyana’s image as a creative, vibrant, and forward-looking partner. It was the act of a man who understood that soft power and hard finance are not opposites but complements.

When his tour of duty concluded in August 2020, the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry bid him farewell with deep and genuine respect. The measure of an ambassador is not the office he occupies, but the institutional bridges he builds and the goodwill he leaves behind. By that measure, Dr. Ally’s tenure was exceptional.

 

PART IV: THE PROFESSOR AND THE PUBLISHED MIND — 25 Years in the Academy

Throughout his corporate and diplomatic career, Dr. Ally never abandoned the classroom. For 25 years, he taught graduate and undergraduate courses spanning International Accounting, Strategic Management, and Global Sustainability at eight universities across New York, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and internationally including DeSales University, George Washington University (where he served as a doctoral dissertation examiner), and Qatar University.

His authority as a leadership thinker was globally validated when he was selected as one of only 30 global leaders interviewed for Dr. Michael Marquardt’s seminal work, Leading with Questions—alongside leaders from Switzerland, Korea, and Singapore. He is also a  published author in his own right; his Amazon title, My Tenure as Guyana’s Ambassador in Kuwait and Lessons in Diplomacy offers an authoritative insider account of how small-nation diplomacy can be conducted with vision and executed with discipline.

He has also long been ahead of the curve in educational technology—mastering narrated course delivery on Blackboard and Blackboard Learn platforms years before the pandemic made online learning a global necessity. He achieved the prestigious Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) designation as far back as 1975, a half-century of mastery in communication and leadership that few can rival.

PART V: THE PHILANTHROPIST — Giving Back to Guyana’s Future

Dr. Ally’s patriotism has never been merely rhetorical. Through his personal vision and personal financing, he donated 1,458 specialized U.S. textbooks—valued at over G$19 million—to establish the “Dr. Shamir Ally Reading Corner” at the University of Guyana. This was not a tax strategy or a publicity exercise. It was the act of a man who understood that a nation’s future is built in its libraries, and who was willing to fund that future from his own resources.

During the 2007 Cricket World Cup Super-8 matches in Guyana, he personally conceptualized, executed, and financed 90% of a comprehensive Visitor Spending Survey—generating hard empirical data (average visitor spending of $439 on shopping and $379 on transport, among other metrics) that provided the Guyanese state with the analytical framework needed to optimize its sports tourism infrastructure for generations. This was private investment in public knowledge, the kind of contribution that rarely makes headlines but permanently shapes policy.

PART VI: THE GLOBAL CITIZEN — 84 Countries and the Continuing Education of the World

Dr. Ally operates on a philosophy that has guided his life for decades: “Travel is global continuing education on people, culture, food, music, and history.” He has backed this belief with his feet and his years, visiting 84 countries across five continents, 45 of the 50 U.S. states, and 11 U.S. Presidential Libraries and Museums—an extraordinary curriculum in executive leadership drawn not from syllabi but from direct observation of how nations are governed and how leaders are remembered.

His travels have been marked by memorable milestones: in September 2001, he completed a true circumnavigation of the globe—Newark to Dubai, Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo, and back to Los Angeles—that included a historic stay at the iconic, ultra-luxury Burj Al Arab in Dubai. Most recently, from January 25 to February 10, 2025, he embarked on a seven-nation journey through Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Qatar, and Brunei—with Brunei marking his official 84th distinct country.

Among all the nations he has visited, it is Singapore that he holds as the gold standard of national governance—a city-state that has shown the world what is possible when leadership combines education, health, and financial security into a coherent national vision. That admiration is revealing it is the admiration of a man who has seen the possibilities, who believes Guyana can achieve them, and who has spent his life trying to help make them real.

PART VII: THE MEDIA VOICE — “Diplomatic Speak” and the Weekly Counsel of a Statesman

Retirement, for Dr. Ally, is not a condition he recognizes. Today, he serves as President, CEO, and CFO of International Consulting Services (ICS) in Long Island, New York, bringing the full weight of his financial and diplomatic expertise to bear on the challenges of global enterprise.

He also continues to share his wisdom with the Guyanese public and diaspora through his weekly “Diplomatic Speak” column for Village Voice News, with more than 200 published columns to date covering leadership, governance, macroeconomic metrics, and international affairs. This is not the work of a man coasting on his legacy—it is the work of a public intellectual who believes that every week brings a new obligation to inform, challenge, and inspire.

★ A FITTING TRIBUTE ★

When Dr. Shamir Andrew Ally steps onto the stage at the Guyana Independence Ball on the evening of June 6th, he will do so carrying more than personal achievement. He will carry the weight and the honor of every Guyanese student who ever opened one of his donated textbooks, every civil servant whose infrastructure was funded by a deal he negotiated in the Gulf, every diaspora member who drew courage from his example, and every young person who has come to understand, through watching his life, that it is possible to belong to the world and still belong, above all, to Guyana.

The accolade he will be  receiving  on June 27th is not a retrospective. It is a recognition, in real time, of a life still actively being lived in service. Dr. Ally continues to write, to consult, to advise, and to advocate. The story is not finished. The nation is still being built.

The 592 Guardian salutes Dr. Shamir Andrew Ally, Ph.D., MBA, FAIA, DTM—diplomat of distinction, financial architect, academic pioneer, philanthropist, and selfless servant of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. His life is proof that one person, armed with expertise, integrity, and an unbreakable love for their homeland, can change the trajectory of a nation.

THE 592 GUARDIAN • WHERE GUYANA’S STORY IS TOLD

Special Feature • Guyana Independence Edition • June 2026

The Invisible Transfer: 

/0 Comments/in , /by

EDITORIAL — SPECIAL REPORT 

RESOURCE SOVEREIGNTY & GOVERNANCE REVIEW 

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES · TAX POLICY · NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY 

The Invisible Transfer: 

How Guyana’s Governance Gaps Give Away Strategic Resources 

When a uranium deposit changes hands in Singapore, Guyana collects nothing. This is not an accident— it is a system working exactly as poorly designed systems do. 

MAY 2026 · SPECIAL EDITORIAL · TAX & RESOURCE GOVERNANCE

The acquisition of Guyana’s only uranium project by Canadian firm U92 Energy Corp.—executed through the purchase of Singapore-registered LIA Industries Pte. Ltd.—did not merely expose a gap in one law. It illuminated the outline of a governance architecture that was never built. What the country faces is not a single loophole to be patched; it is a structural condition in which the legal, regulatory, and fiscal scaffolding around its extractive sector lags dangerously behind the sophistication of those who exploit it. 

The mechanism here is neither novel nor obscure. It is a well documented instrument in the global extractive industry: the indirect transfer of resource assets through offshore holding companies. Instead of selling the Guyanese asset directly—which would trigger domestic tax obligations—a company sells the foreign entity that owns the asset. The asset never formally moves. Only the beneficial owners change. And so, from Guyana’s current legal vantage point, nothing taxable occurred on its soil at all. 

The Kurupung uranium project—spanning over 90 square kilometers with an estimated 20.6 million pounds of uranium in the ground—changed hands without the State capturing a single dollar in transfer taxes, capital gains tax, or windfall levies. In a world increasingly turning toward nuclear energy as a low carbon baseload solution, uranium is not merely a mineral. It is a strategic asset. And Guyana appears to have had no seat at the table when its ownership was reassigned.

“The DRC did not even know it was happening, despite owning a 20% equity stake in the project. The acquisition occurred entirely onshore, through a Bermuda holding company, and the country received nothing.”
COLUMBIA CENTER ON SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT, ON THE $2.65 BILLION TENKE FUNGURUME COPPER MINE SALE, 2016

 

Guyana is not alone in this vulnerability—but the global precedents make inaction all the more inexcusable. The Democratic Republic of Congo watched as Freeport McMoRan sold its 56% controlling stake in one of its largest copper mines to China Molybdenum through a Bermuda holding company for $2.65 billion, receiving nothing in return. The DRC did not even know the transaction was occurring. If that scale of loss is possible in a country with a 20% equity stake and formal operator relationships, consider what is possible in a country where the regulatory regime is still being assembled.

1.The Anatomy of an Indirect Transfer

To understand the full scope of the problem, one must understand how these transactions are structured. A mining or resource company wishing to exit a project in a developing country has two broad options: sell the underlying asset directly or sell the shares in a company that holds that asset. The first route is visible, taxable, and open subject to regulatory approval in the host country. The second route—the indirect transfer—occurs in a foreign jurisdiction, sometimes involving multiple layers of holding companies across multiple tax havens.

In Guyana’s case, LIA Industries Pte. Ltd., incorporated in Singapore, held the prospecting license for the Kurupung uranium project. When U92 Energy Corp. acquired LIA Industries, it acquired Guyana’s uranium project. But legally, what was sold was a Singapore company. Singapore received whatever taxes were applicable there. Guyana received none. 

The Platform for Collaboration on Tax—a joint body of the IMF, OECD, UN, and World Bank—has articulated the foundational principle clearly: direct and indirect asset transfers that represent the same transfer of ownership should attract the same tax treatment. Otherwise, the incentive structure actively encourages offshore structuring to avoid the host country’s fiscal claim. 

This is precisely what Guyana’s current framework incentivizes. The country’s tax legislation does not contain provisions to “look through” the offshore holding structure and assert fiscal jurisdiction over gains derived from the underlying Guyanese resource. The result is a system in which the more creative the corporate structure, the less the country collects. 

The UN Handbook on Selected Issues for Taxation of the Extractive Industries—a dedicated technical resource for developing countries— identifies indirect asset transfers as a discrete and serious challenge, dedicating an entire chapter to the design of legal responses. Guyana does not yet appear to have translated that guidance into legislative action. 

COMPARATIVE CASE 
How Tanzania Closed the Gap

Tanzania’s Mining Act and Income Tax Act were amended to treat indirect transfers of mining rights as taxable events, requiring notification and withholding, regardless of where the transaction occurs. The triggering criterion is whether the underlying asset derives its value principally from Tanzanian resources. Similar “principal value” tests have been adopted across Africa and Asia. 

Countries including Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, India, China, and Peru have each, in their own ways, enacted legislation that either taxes indirect transfers directly, requires their notification, or subjects them to approval conditions. Guyana has none of these protections. 

“$2.65B 

 DRC COPPER MINE SOLD OFF SHORE

 0 TAXES TO HOST COUNTRY

 20.6M 

 LBS OF URANIUM 

 ESTIMATED AT 

 KURUPUNG — 

 TRANSFERRED WITHOUT 

 GUYANA AT THE TABLE

 0 

 GUYANESE TAX DOLLARS 

 CAPTURED FROM THE 

 U92/LIA INDUSTRIES 

 TRANSACTION

 

11.A License Is a Public Asset. It Must Be Treated as One.

At the center of this transaction lies a prospecting license—a legal right granted by the Guyanese State to explore and potentially extract a mineral resource that belongs, constitutionally, to the people of

Guyana. It is not a private property right that can circulate freely in commercial channels without State involvement. It is a delegated public right, granted conditionally, revocable in principle, and tied to specific obligations of the licensee. 

Yet the practical reality is that this license has now passed to new beneficial owners—U92 Energy Corp. and its principals—without any formal regulatory approval process specific to the change of control. The license was not transferred. The company holding it was simply sold abroad. And because the license nominally remains in the name of LIA Industries Pte. Ltd., no formal transfer of license was triggered. 

This is the second tier of the governance failure: the disconnect between formal legal title and actual beneficial control. Guyana’s licensing framework does not appear to contain provisions requiring the disclosure or approval of indirect changes of control over license holding entities. The company on the license remains the same; only who owns that company has changed. 

Many jurisdictions have corrected this through what are known as change-of-control provisions in their mining or petroleum legislation. These require that any transaction—whether a direct sale of the license or an indirect acquisition of the controlling interest in the license holder—constitutes a triggering event requiring regulatory notification, review, and in some cases, approval or payment of a transfer fee. 

The absence of such provisions in Guyana creates a dangerous parallel reality: on paper, a State-issued license remains in the hands of the original licensee; in practice, an entirely different set of principals now controls the economic destiny of that resource. 

The implications extend beyond taxation. Questions of beneficial ownership transparency, national security vetting, environmental liability, and regulatory accountability   all hinge on knowing who actually controls a resource asset. If that information can be withheld through offshore corporate structuring, the State is not merely losing revenue—it is losing oversight itself.

“If a company can change hands abroad and automatically retain control of a Guyanese license, then the State has electively relinquished control over who exploits its resources.” — THE PRECIPITATING EDITORIAL ON THE U92 ACQUISITION

III Uranium Is Not Gold. The Governance Stakes Are Higher.

 There is a tendency in resource governance debates to treat all extractive commodities similarly. The Kurupung transaction demands a more differentiated analysis. Uranium is not gold. It is not bauxite. It is not even crude oil, despite that industry’s own considerable governance complexities. 

Uranium is a dual-use material with applications in both civilian energy generation and nuclear weapons development. Its extraction, processing, and trade are subject to international regulatory regimes— including the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards framework—that impose obligations on both states and operators. The identity, affiliations, and security clearances of uranium operators are not merely commercial questions. They are national security questions. 

Guyana enters this sector with what the government has itself acknowledged: no other uranium projects, no established regulatory framework, and no domestic experience with the specific hazards and obligations that uranium extraction entails. That context does not make the resource less valuable—the global nuclear energy renaissance, driven partly by decarbonization commitments, may make Guyanese uranium considerably more valuable over the coming decades. But it does make the governance deficit considerably more dangerous. 

There are four distinct dimensions of risk that Guyana must now navigate simultaneously with respect to Kurupung: 

Radiological and Environmental Risk: Uranium extraction generates radioactive tailings and contaminated water that, if improperly managed, can persist in the environment for centuries. Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency and Geology and Mines Commission must have the technical capacity to monitor, inspect, and enforce environmental standards specific to uranium—a very different challenge from gold or bauxite oversight. 

Geopolitical and Security Risk: The identity of the ultimate beneficial owners of a uranium license matter. International safeguards regimes require states to account for nuclear materials within their territory. If Guyana cannot identify who controls its uranium resource at any given time, it may struggle to meet its international reporting obligations—let alone its national security interests.

Regulatory Capacity Risk: The sector is genuinely new to Guyana. Neither the institutional expertise nor the specialized regulatory instruments required for uranium governance have been established. The country is, in effect, being asked to regulate something it has never encountered before—and it is being asked to do so retroactively, after ownership has already changed hands. 

Fiscal Sovereignty Risk: As with all extractive commodities, uranium’s fiscal contribution to Guyana will depend almost entirely on the quality of the fiscal regime that governs it—including royalties, profit taxes, ring-fencing provisions, and yes, taxes on indirect transfers. If those instruments are not in place before production begins, they become extraordinarily difficult to introduce without triggering investor disputes. 

The window for proactive governance is open. It will not remain so indefinitely. Once exploration advances toward development, and once financial commitments compound, the political economy of reform shifts sharply away from the State. 

1v The Systemic Failure: Oil Was the Warning, Uranium Is the Test 

The U92 acquisition did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred against the backdrop of Guyana’s ongoing—and extensively documented—struggles to capture adequate fiscal returns from its petroleum sector. The country’s oil contracts, negotiated under the Stabroek block regime, have been widely criticized by international fiscal governance experts for royalty rates, cost recovery provisions, and ring-fencing structures that limit the State’s take. These were not the product of malice; they were the product of a negotiating context in which the State had less information, less capacity, and less leverage than its counterparts. 

The pattern matters: resource sectors tend to be governed by the frameworks that existed at the time of the first major transaction, not the frameworks that should have existedBy the time the scale of the asset is understood, the contracts are signed, the precedents are set, and the cost of renegotiation—financial, diplomatic, and political—is prohibitive. 

Guyana is now receiving a second notice. The uranium sector is embryonic. There are no production-stage contracts. There are no entrenched investors with sunk capital claiming sovereign protection for existing arrangements. The cost of reform at this stage is political will and legislative time—considerably cheaper than the cost of reform after the fact. 

The IMF, in its own assessments of developing country resource governance, has consistently flagged indirect transfer taxation as one of the areas where developing countries leave the most revenue on the table. The mechanism is technically understood. The legislative models are available. The question is whether Guyana’s institutions will act on the evidence before the window closes. 

The answer to that question will say something lasting about the country’s capacity to govern its resource wealth in the interest of its citizens—not just in uranium, but in whatever comes next.

THE GLOBAL PRECEDENT — INDIA’S GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RESPONSE 

When Vodafone Sued India for $2 Billion — and India Rewrote the Law 

In 2012, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the government could not tax Vodafone’s acquisition of an Indian telecom business through a Cayman Islands holding company. The transaction—valued at $11 billion—had been structured to route control of the Indian asset through a foreign entity, placing it outside India’s tax jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed with Vodafone. India’s Parliament then amended the Income Tax Act retroactively to assert jurisdiction over indirect transfers of assets whose value is substantially derived from Indian sources. The lesson: waiting for litigation is the most expensive way to reform. Guyana should not need a billion-dollar case to prompt action.

  1. What Reform Must Look Like
  3. Reform in this area is achievable. It is technically understood, internationally precedented, and—at this stage of Guyana’s extractive sector development—politically feasible. The following measures constitute a minimum legislative and regulatory agenda, not an aspirational wish list.

01 LEGISLATE INDIRECT TRANSFER TAXATION 

Amend the Income Tax Act to assert Guyana’s fiscal jurisdiction over gains derived from the indirect transfer of assets whose value is principally derived from Guyanese resources. The “principal value test”—requiring that at least 50% or 75% of the entity’s value be attributable to local resource assets—is the standard adopted by Tanzania, Uganda, India, and others. This closes the Singapore-Singapore sale scenario entirely. 

02 MANDATE CHANGE-OF-CONTROL NOTIFICATION AND APPROVAL Amend the Mines Act and relevant petroleum legislation to require that any change in the ultimate beneficial ownership of a license-holding entity—direct or indirect—constitutes a triggering event requiring notification to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission and, for strategic resources, Ministerial approval. This closes the “same license, new owners” loophole. 

03 ESTABLISH BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REGISTERS FOR LICENCE HOLDERS 

All companies holding prospecting or mining licenses in Guyana must file and maintain current beneficial ownership 

information, updated within 30 days of any change of control. This registry should be accessible to relevant regulatory bodies and, where national security is implicated, to intelligence agencies. Beneficial ownership transparency is the prerequisite for all other oversight. 

04 DEVELOP A DEDICATED URANIUM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The Kurupung project cannot be adequately governed under generic mining legislation. A sector-speci5c regulatory framework for uranium—covering radiological safety, tailings management, IAEA safeguards compliance, export controls, and security vetting of operators—must be developed before exploration advances toward development stage. Guyana should engage directly with the IAEA’s technical cooperation 

programmes to build this capacity. 

05 CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE FISCAL REGIME REVIEW FOR THE URANIUM SECTOR 

Before any development licenses are considered for Kurupung, the Guyana Revenue Authority and Ministry of Finance should commission an independent fiscal regime analysis for uranium, benchmarking royalty rates, profit taxes, ring-fencing 

provisions, and stability clause frameworks against comparable jurisdictions. This analysis should be public and should precede —not follow—any negotiation with the license holder. 

06 REVIEW ALL EXISTING LICENCES FOR UNDISCLOSED INDIRECT TRANSFERS 

The U92 acquisition is unlikely to be the only instance of indirect transfer affecting Guyanese resource licenses. A comprehensive audit of all active prospecting and mining licenses, verifying current beneficial ownership against original applicant identity, would reveal the scope of the problem and inform legislative priorities.

— ◆ — 

There is a phrase that recurs in resource governance literature: “the resource curse is not inevitable—it is a policy choice Countries do not become cursed by oil or gold or uranium. They become cursed by the 

institutional arrangements they fail to build before extraction begins, and by the political environments that make reform feel impossible once the money starts =owing. 

Guyana is not cursed. It is, in fact, one of the few countries in the world that has received clear, repeated, well-documented warnings about the governance gaps in its extractive sector—and still has the time and political space to address them. The oil sector’s fiscal architecture is imperfect but established; reforming it now is difficult. The uranium sector has no such entrenched architecture yet. The cost of building it correctly today is a fraction of the cost of renegotiating it under duress tomorrow. 

The U92 acquisition is not primarily a story about one company, one project, or one transaction. It is a story about what a State owes its citizens when it grants away the right to their natural inheritance. That inheritance does not belong to whoever is clever enough to structure around the rules. It belongs to the people of Guyana. The only question is whether their government will act in time to protect it. 

— ◆ — 

RESOURCE SOVEREIGNTY & GOVERNANCE REVIEW · EDITORIAL BOARD · MAY 2026 · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Citi’s Arrival Is Not Banking Expansion — It Is Strategic Extraction

/0 Comments/in , /by

Citi’s Arrival Is Not Banking Expansion —

It Is Strategic Extraction

The announcement that global financial giant Citi has received approval to establish a representative office in Guyana is being widely celebrated as a signal of international confidence and a strengthening of the local banking sector. That interpretation is not only misleading—it obscures the true nature of what is unfolding.

This is not banking expansion in any meaningful domestic sense. It is strategic positioning.

A representative office is not a commercial bank. It does not take deposits, issue local loans, or provide retail or broad-based corporate banking services within the domestic economy. Its purpose is far narrower and far more targeted: to facilitate high-value transactions, manage relationships with multinational clients, and channel capital flows through global financial networks.

In plain terms, Citi is not coming to bank Guyana—it is coming to service the upper tier of international business already operating within it.

This distinction matters because it exposes the gap between perception and reality. While the public is being led to believe that this development will expand access to financing, particularly for local enterprises, the opposite is more likely. Citi’s model is structured around large-scale, export-oriented, and foreign-linked transactions. Small and medium-sized Guyanese businesses—the backbone of the domestic economy—will remain largely excluded from its services.

Even among larger local firms, access will likely depend on their integration into international trade or their alignment with sectors such as oil and gas, infrastructure, and export logistics. This is not inclusive banking; it is selective financial intermediation designed for high-value clients operating in foreign currency ecosystems.

And that brings us to the core issue: currency and capital flows.

Citi’s operations in Guyana will almost certainly be anchored in U.S. dollar transactions, not Guyana dollar intermediation. This is not incidental—it is fundamental to its business model. The office will function as a conduit for moving capital into and out of Guyana efficiently, ensuring that profits, payments, and financing arrangements remain within Citi’s global system.

In effect, this creates a parallel financial channel—one that operates alongside, but not within, the domestic economy.

The implications are significant. Rather than deepening local financial capacity, such arrangements risk reinforcing an enclave-style economic structure, where high-value activities are externally managed and internally disconnected. Wealth flows through the country, but not necessarily into its broader economic fabric.

This is why the narrative of “confidence” must be treated with caution. Citi is not expressing confidence in Guyana’s domestic financial ecosystem or its small business sector. It is expressing confidence in its ability to extract value from a rapidly expanding, resource-driven economy.

That is a fundamentally different proposition.

The only tangible national benefit from this presence will depend on policy choices—specifically, whether the government ensures that such entities are subject to fair taxation and regulatory oversight. If tax concessions or holidays are granted, as has been the case in other sectors, even that limited benefit could be undermined.

Absent strong policy intervention, Guyana risks repeating a familiar pattern: attracting global players who participate in its growth without meaningfully contributing to its development.

Citi’s move should therefore be understood not as a milestone in banking sector expansion, but as a signal of where value is being concentrated—and who is positioned to capture it.

The real question is not whether Guyana is attracting global institutions. It is whether it is structuring their presence in a way that serves national interests, rather than simply accommodating global capital.

Until that question is answered with clarity and intent, celebrations of “confidence” will remain premature at best—and misleading at worst.

 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

Flag, Fiasco, Fallout

/0 Comments/in , /by

Flag, Fiasco, Fallout:

The Desecration of Fort Zeelandia

 

Fort Zeelandia did not deteriorate overnight. Its current condition, following the ill-conceived Independence flag-raising event, is the direct result of decisions—decisions made by public officials entrusted with both national heritage and public funds.

What unfolded was not simply a poorly managed ceremony. It was a failure of governance.

Responsibility begins squarely with the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport, the state body charged with oversight of national events and the preservation of cultural assets. Any event staged at a site of this magnitude requires meticulous planning, strict usage controls, and, critically, a post-event restoration protocol. The absence of these basic safeguards suggests either a breakdown in administrative competence or a disregard for the site’s historical value.

Equally implicated is the National Trust of Guyana, the statutory agency specifically mandated to protect and manage heritage sites such as Fort Zeelandia. If the Trust approved the use of the site without enforceable preservation conditions, then it failed in its legal and moral duty. If it was bypassed or sidelined, then that raises even more serious questions about governance and institutional integrity.

And above these agencies sits the Cabinet itself, which cannot credibly claim ignorance. National Independence events are not minor undertakings; they are centrally coordinated, politically visible, and funded from the public purse. That means ultimate accountability rests at the highest levels of government, including the Office of the President, which has repeatedly positioned itself as a champion of Guyana’s global environmental and sustainability credentials.

This is where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

Guyana has aggressively marketed its Low Carbon Development Strategy and carbon credit framework to the international community, positioning itself as a model of environmental stewardship. Billions in climate financing are premised on the idea that this nation understands the value of preservation—that it treats its natural and cultural assets with care, discipline, and respect.

Yet at Fort Zeelandia, we see the opposite: a heritage site treated as a disposable backdrop, left visibly degraded in the wake of a single evening’s spectacle.

Environmental stewardship is not divisible. A government cannot credibly claim to safeguard millions of hectares of forest while failing to protect a single, well-defined national monument. The principles are the same—planning, respect, accountability, and restoration.

What compounds the issue is the question of public funds. How much was spent on this event? Which contractors were engaged? Were there environmental or heritage impact guidelines embedded in those contracts? And crucially, has any allocation been made for the restoration of the site?

Silence on these questions only deepens public suspicion.

This is not merely about optics. It is about governance culture. When state institutions act without consequence—when heritage protections are ignored, when public spending yields damage rather than value, when no official steps forward to accept responsibility—the result is erosion not just of physical sites, but of public trust.

Fort Zeelandia is not an ordinary space. It is a repository of national memory. It carries the weight of Guyana’s colonial history, its struggles, and its evolution into an independent state. To allow it to be mishandled in this way is to diminish that history itself.

The government now faces a simple test.

Will the Ministry of Culture publicly account for its planning failures? Will the National Trust assert its authority and outline corrective measures? Will there be a transparent assessment of damage and a funded restoration plan? And most importantly, will anyone in a position of authority accept responsibility?

Or will this, like too many other episodes, be quietly absorbed into the machinery of impunity?

Guyana cannot afford that outcome—not if it wishes to be taken seriously, either by its own citizens or by the international partners to whom it sells a vision of sustainability and stewardship.

Because stewardship is not declared. It is demonstrated.

And at Fort Zeelandia, the demonstration has been a failure.

 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

 

 

World- class
World-class
Abuse of public funds
Abuse of Public Funds
Rental paid by you
Clean up paid by you
Who cleans this ?
Big Soiree?
Rental
Rental still being paid
58% Poverty
58% Poverty?
Desecration of Flag
No respect
Who is paying for this?
A HERITAGE SITE ?

 

 

Silence vs Scrutiny: What Guyana Must Learn from the Philippines Case

/0 Comments/in /by

Silence vs Scrutiny: What Guyana Must Learn from the Philippines Case

By: Staff Writer

The recent release of 64 Chinese nationals in the Philippines—detained amid allegations of nuclear safety violations and breaches of immigration and labor laws—should command serious attention in Guyana. Not because the circumstances are identical, but because the institutional response offers a revealing contrast.

In the Philippine case, authorities acted swiftly to detain foreign workers linked to potentially hazardous industrial operations. The allegations were grave, touching on issues of public safety and regulatory compliance. Yet just as swiftly, the judicial process intervened. The Department of Justice reviewed the evidence and concluded that it was insufficient to sustain the charges. The detainees were released. Six more are expected to follow.

This sequence—allegation, enforcement, review, and legal resolution—reflects a functioning, if imperfect, system. It underscores a basic principle: the state must not only act when serious concerns arise but must also subject its actions to scrutiny and evidentiary standards.

Now consider Guyana’s unfolding Ekaa HRIM controversy.

Here, the issue is not a lack of allegations—it is an abundance of them. Reports continue to surface from workers describing troubling conditions: unsafe handling of materials, questionable labor practices, and what appear to be systemic breaches of occupational and environmental safeguards. These accounts are not isolated. They are accumulating, forming a pattern that demands urgent and credible investigation.

Yet, conspicuously, the state has not matched the gravity of these claims with commensurate action.

There has been no visible, comprehensive probe. No clear indication of independent oversight. No sustained public communication outlining what is being investigated, by whom, and under what legal framework. Instead, there is a vacuum—one filled increasingly by worker testimonies, speculation, and public unease.

This silence is not merely a communications failure. It is a governance failure.

At stake is more than the credibility of a single enterprise. The Ekaa HRIM matter touches on core questions about how Guyana manages foreign investment, enforces labor protections, and safeguards both workers and communities from industrial risk. It raises the uncomfortable possibility that regulatory mechanisms may be either under-resourced, compromised, or selectively applied.

That possibility alone should trigger alarm at the highest levels of government.

Guyana is in the midst of a transformative economic period, driven in large part by foreign capital and large-scale industrial activity. This transformation carries undeniable opportunities—but also significant risks. 

 

Chief among them is the emergence of regulatory blind spots, where the pace of investment outstrips the capacity or willingness of institutions to enforce the law.

If left unaddressed, such gaps do not remain isolated. They metastasize. They create precedents—quiet understandings that certain actors may operate with a degree of impunity, particularly where economic or diplomatic considerations are perceived to be at play.

The Philippine example demonstrates that even where allegations prove unfounded, the act of investigation itself is essential. It reassures the public, tests the integrity of claims, and reinforces the principle that no entity operates above scrutiny.

Guyana, by contrast, risks sending the opposite message.

 

The continued emergence of “horror stories,” as described by affected workers, suggests not only potential violations but also a growing crisis of confidence. Workers are speaking out because they perceive that formal channels may not be functioning as they should. That, in itself, is a red flag.

The government cannot afford to treat this as a peripheral issue. Nor can it rely on silence as a strategy.

What is required is immediate, visible, and credible action: a full-scale investigation led by competent and independent authorities; transparent reporting of findings; and, where violations are confirmed, decisive enforcement. This must include scrutiny of labor practices, immigration compliance, environmental standards, and any handling of hazardous materials.

Anything less will deepen public suspicion and erode institutional legitimacy.

There is also a broader reputational dimension. Guyana’s international standing—as an emerging economy seeking investment and partnerships—depends not only on its resource wealth but on the strength of its governance. Investors and partners alike take note of how states respond to controversy, particularly where it intersects with labor rights and safety standards.

A failure to act decisively in the Ekaa HRIM matter risks signaling that oversight is negotiable and that enforcement may yield to expediency.

That is a dangerous signal to send.

 

Ultimately, this is a test—not just of a single company or a discrete set of allegations, but of the state itself. It is a test of whether Guyana’s institutions are prepared to uphold the rule of law consistently, even when doing so may be inconvenient or politically sensitive.

The Philippines, in this instance, demonstrated that action and accountability can coexist. Guyana must now demonstrate that it is capable of the same.

Silence is no longer tenable. The integrity of governance demands a response.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

Guyana’s Diaspora Bond: A Financial Rendezvous Without the Scaffolding of Governance

/0 Comments/in , /by

Guyana’s Diaspora Bond:

A Financial Rendezvous Without the Scaffolding of Governance

By: Staff– Writer

President Mohamed Irfaan Ali recently announced that Guyana will launch a special diaspora bond within a week, aimed at raising funds from Guyanese living overseas to finance public infrastructure projects. The bond was unveiled during a joint appearance with Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley at Guyana’s National Stadium, part of the country’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, alongside broader plans for passport-free travel, digital ID integration, and a regional investment fund.

This is a major step in the wrong direction—not because diaspora capital is unwelcome, but because the government is embarking on a sovereign-backed financial instrument without first answering the most basic questions of authority, accountability, and investor protection.

The Authority Deficit

On what legal and constitutional authority is the government, and President Ali personally, launching this bond? Guyana’s Constitution vests law-making power in Parliament, and public debt management best practices, including those from the World Bank and IMF, require that borrowing, guarantees, and contingent liabilities be either approved by Parliament or reported to it in a timely, detailed manner.

Yet there is no indication that this bond has been authorized by specific legislation, debated in Parliament, or subjected to public scrutiny. The government is effectively taking on the responsibility of financial underwriting without consultation. This is not policy innovation; it is fiscal improvisation.

The Credit Problem

A diaspora bond is only as credible as the borrower behind it. Investor confidence depends on the sovereign’s creditworthiness, the legal framework governing repayment, and the enforceability of commitments.

Guyana still does not have a widely recognized sovereign credit rating. In 2020, analysts argued that the time was opportune for Guyana to obtain one; nearly six years later, that exercise remains incomplete. Without a publicly disclosed credit rating, without transparent debt sustainability analysis, and without disclosed terms, the government is asking diaspora investors to bet on trust rather than on verifiable financial strength.

The Legal Vacuum

What legislation will be put in place to guarantee investors? What security backs the bond? What recourse do investors have if the state cannot or will not pay?

Diaspora bonds are more effective when they sit inside a clear legal architecture, sometimes with institutional safeguards or credit support. When they are not, they rely heavily on sentiment rather than enforceable protection. The announcement has provided none of these details.

This is not abstract. Guyana has seen financial promises collapse before. When CLICO Insurance failed, many investors were left unpaid for years, with little recourse and no clear resolution. That trauma is still fresh in the public memory. A government-backed diaspora bond that lacks statutory backing risks repeating the same pattern: high hopes, weak legal protection, and a long tail of unresolved claims.

The Political Risk: What Happens If the Government Changes?

The most dangerous gap in this design is political. What happens if the administration changes and the next government decide it does not want to honor the debenture?

Sovereign debt is not personal. It is institutional. But when an instrument is launched quickly, without legislation, without budgetary anchoring, and without parliamentary oversight, it becomes vulnerable to political reinterpretation. The next administration could delay payments, renegotiate terms, or simply disown the initiative, leaving investors exposed and the state’s credibility damaged.

Patriotism cannot substitute for a binding legal commitment. If the government truly wants diaspora investment to be safe and credible, it must anchor the bond in law, not in press statements.

The Regional Pattern: Integration Promises That Outpace Governance

The diaspora bond is just one part of a broader Guyana–Barbados integration agenda: passport-free travel starting July 1 based on a digital ID system, plans for digitally connected financial systems, and a new regional investment fund called Trident Arrow.

President Ali has said the system will eventually support integrated healthcare services between the two countries. These are ambitious goals. But ambition without legal architecture is a recipe for policy overload. The Caribbean has seen this reel before: grand announcements, rapid political momentum, and then a slow, messy realization that the institutions, laws, and oversight mechanisms were never built.

Guyana now risks turning its diaspora into testing subjects for unstructured financial engineering.

Why This Matters for Guyana’s Future

Diaspora capital can absolutely support development. But it must be mobilized responsibly. That means:

  • Parliamentary approval for any sovereign-backed borrowing or guarantee
  • A clear legal framework that defines the bond’s terms, security, and enforcement mechanisms
  • Transparency on credit risk, including disclosure of debt sustainability and sovereign rating status
  • Protection against political turnover, ensuring that obligations survive changes in government

 

Without these safeguards, the diaspora bond becomes less a development tool and more a political gamble

The Bottom Line

Guyana is at a pivotal moment. Oil and gas revenues have transformed the economy, but they have also exposed the country to new risks: fiscal overreach, weak governance structures, and policy decisions that outpace institutional capacity.

This diaspora bond is a test. If the government proceeds without parliamentary sanction, without a legal framework, and without investor protections, it will signal that political momentum matters more than fiscal prudence.

If Guyana truly wants to honor its diaspora, it must treat their investment not as a patriotic donation, but as a serious financial contract—one that is backed by law, overseen by Parliament, and protected from the whims of political change.

Otherwise, what is being sold as regional innovation may become another Caribbean lesson in how easily political ambition outruns governance.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

 

Mr. President,  the People Are Still Waiting

/0 Comments/in , /by

OPINION & EDITORIAL 

THE PUBLIC RECORD 

MAY 2026   EDITORIAL 

Mr. President, the People Are Still Waiting 

Eight years of oil. Sixty years of independence. And more than half the country still lives in poverty. No speech, however soaring, can paper over that arithmetic. 

THE EDITORS · OPINION 

There is a particular cruelty to eloquence deployed in the presence of deprivation. President Dr. Irfaan Ali’s address on the eve of Guyana’s 60th Independence Anniversary was, by the standards of political oratory, a polished performance. It had rhythm. It had poetry. It had the grand architecture of a speech designed to be quoted, clipped, and circulated. What it did not have — what it conspicuously, almost defiantly, lacked — was an honest reckoning with the country it was delivered in. 

The oil beneath Guyana’s waters is, as the President declared, the property of the people. He is right about that. Which is precisely why the people deserve a government that speaks to them plainly about why, after eight years of oil production and historic revenue windfalls, the majority of Guyanese remain poor.

58% 

POVERTY RATE — AFTER 8 YEARS OF OIL 

Guyana became a major oil producer in 2016. By any credible measurement, the majority of its citizens have yet to feel that transformation in their daily lives. This is not a statistic to be dismissed with a road metaphor.

Let us grant the President his roads and bridges. Infrastructure is real. Construction is visible. Progress can be photographed and inaugurated. But a road that connects a community still mired in poverty, still without reliable electricity, still without clean running water, still without a functioning primary health care system — that road does not connect destinies. It connects misery to more misery, only faster. 

The President told Guyanese that schools “teach children to dream.” But dreams require a foundation. They require a teacher who is paid on time and trained well. They require a school building that does not Nood in the rainy season. They require a child who arrived that morning having eaten. The gap between the rhetoric of dreaming and the reality of classrooms in the hinterland and poor coastal communities is not a gap that poetic language can bridge. 

Hospitals, the President, “affirmed that every Guyanese life has worth“. A beautiful sentiment. And yet Guyanese continue to travel abroad for procedures unavailable at home. The chronically ill navigate a public health system stretched beyond its limits. Maternal mortality remains a scandal. Drug shortages are routine. If hospitals affirm the worth of lives, someone should tell the hospitals. 

The US$100 million STEM program announced in partnership with ExxonMobil deserves scrutiny, not celebration. A knowledge economy built in partnership with the very extractive corporation profiting most handsomely from Guyana’s resources is not a bold vision of sovereignty — it is a continuation of dependency, dressed in the language of innovation. Who negotiated those terms? What does Guyana own of that pro gramme? These are not hostile questions; they are the minimum due diligence a nation owes itself. 

“One Guyana does not mean we are all the same — it means we are all equal.” If equality is the standard, Mr. President, then the standard has not been met“.

The President’s “One Guyana” formulation is ideologically convenient precisely because it asks nothing of those in power. It asks citizens to look past ethnic division, past regional disparity, past historical grievance — and to trust that the government is building toward something better.

But unity without accountability is not unity. It is compliance. And the test of whether a government is governing “for all” is not the number of projects announced, but the number of lives materially improved. 

THE LITANY THE SPEECH DID NOT ADDRESS

01 Poverty at 58% after eight years of oil revenue
No policy explanation. No timeline for reduction. No accountability for why transformation has not reached the majority of citizens who were promised it would. 

02 Cost of living crushing ordinary households

Food prices, fuel costs, and basic necessities continue to strain families whose wages have not kept pace with the oil economy’s growth. The GDP numbers do not eat breakfast. 

03 Corruption and procurement opacity 

Billions in oil revenue flow through government contracting processes with limited independent oversight. The question of who benefits — and who awards the contracts — demands a direct answer, not a sermon about collective patrimony. 

04 Healthcare infrastructure in crisis 

Beyond the ribbon-cutting of new hospital buildings, the functional capacity of Guyana’s health system — staffing, medication supply chains, specialist availability — remains critically deficient for most citizens outside Georgetown. 

05 Hinterland and interior communities left behind

The President’s vision of a child in any region having the same opportunity is belied by the stark reality of Indigenous and interior communities who lack basic services that coastal Guyanese take for granted. Equal rights require equal investment, not equal rhetoric. 

06 Oil contract transparency and sovereign wealth management 

The terms of Guyana’s production-sharing agreements remain poorly understood by the public. “Spending with purpose and saving with discipline” are phrases — not policies. Where are the independent audits? The parliamentary oversight? The citizen dashboards? 

None of this is to say that Guyana has not built things. It has. None of it suggests that government is without genuine intent. Perhaps it has intent in abundance. The problem is not intent — it is delivery. It is the distance between the podium and the yard, between the micro phone and the market stall, between the speech and the school that still floods. 

At sixty years of independence, Guyana deserves a leader who will stand before its people not with poetry, but with plans. Not with vision, but with verifiable targets. Not with the confidence of someone who believes the oil has already won, but with the humility of someone who knows the work has barely started. The test of independence is not whether a president can deliver a stirring address. It is whether the people he addresses can afford to eat, to heal, to educate their children, and to believe — on evidence, not faith — that tomorrow will be better than today. 

The oil is the peoples. Mr. President so is the reckoning. 

“March not with arrogance, but with confidence,” the President urged. We would add “march not with rhetoric, but with results.” 

— The Editor