2026 – Page 23 – 592guardian.com

Fastest Growing, Fundamentally Fragile

May 4, 2026/in Opinions/by Staff Writer

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩’𝙨 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖’𝙨 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙢𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜—𝙞𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣’𝙩 𝙨𝙤 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜.
Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh wants the country to believe that today’s oil-fuelled boom is the natural and inevitable result of decades of PPP/C foresight, discipline, and economic genius. It is a neat story. Convenient. Self-serving.
And largely incomplete.
Yes, Guyana is now the world’s fastest-growing economy. That much is undeniable. But what the government refuses to confront—what it deliberately sidesteps—is the uncomfortable truth buried within the very reports it proudly cites.

The IMF, World Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank are not in the business of political flattery. And their assessments tell a far less triumphant story.
Strip away the oil, and what remains?
A fragile, under-diversified economy.
Weak institutional capacity.
Chronic implementation failures.
And a public sector struggling to keep pace with the very growth it celebrates.

The World Bank has warned, repeatedly, that Guyana’s non-oil economy lacks resilience. The IDB has flagged glaring deficiencies in governance, procurement, and project execution. These are not minor technical footnotes—they are structural red flags.
Yet, instead of addressing these realities with urgency and transparency, the government wraps itself in GDP statistics and calls it transformation.

This is not transformation. This is statistical intoxication.
Because while the numbers soar, ordinary Guyanese are left to navigate a very different reality: escalating living costs, chaotic infrastructure, overwhelmed health systems, and an education sector ill-prepared for the demands of a modern economy.

Where, exactly, is this prosperity being felt?
Certainly not evenly. And certainly not fairly.The administration’s narrative also leans heavily on historical revisionism—suggesting that today’s success is the direct outcome of policy decisions stretching back to 1992. But let’s be clear: Guyana’s current economic explosion is overwhelmingly driven by oil.
𝙊𝙞𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙚𝙨. 𝙊𝙞𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙊𝙞𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨.
𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.
𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙪𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣.
𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣-𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙩𝙝.
𝙏𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜—𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩.
𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝙩𝙤𝙤, 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙.
𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙥 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙤𝙞𝙡.
𝙃𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩—𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙩 𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘.

And herein lies the danger.
Because what happens when oil prices dip? When reserves decline? When global energy transitions accelerate?
What remains of this so-called “transformation”?
The IDB has already issued the warning: without stronger institutions, greater transparency, and disciplined management of public resources, Guyana risks squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
That is not opposition rhetoric. That is expert assessment.
But instead of confronting these risks, the government continues to peddle a narrative of perfection—one where past leadership is beyond reproach and present challenges are conveniently ignored.

This is not leadership. This is deflection.
Guyana does not need mythology. It needs honesty.
It needs leaders who understand that growth without equity is hollow. That wealth without systems is unstable.
𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚, 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩:
𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙝—𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡-𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙙.
𝙂𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜—𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚.
𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜—𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙪𝙣𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙.
𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙤 𝙖𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛-𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮.
𝙁𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.
𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙠𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜
𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦

Diplomacy Has Boundaries – Even for Allies

May 4, 2026/in Editorial/by Staff Writer

𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐀𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐭’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲

There is an old and well-understood principle in international relations: diplomacy works best when it is conducted with discretion, mutual respect, and an acute awareness of the boundaries that separate advocacy from interference. It is a principle that has guided productive bilateral relationships for centuries, and one that appears to have been somewhat overlooked in recent remarks made by United States Ambassador to Guyana, Nicole Theriot.
Speaking on a recent episode of the
𝙀𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 podcast, Ambassador Theriot called on Guyana to modernize its tender process, digitize procurement submissions, strengthen oversight of public contracts, and resolve the double taxation burden facing American companies operating here.
𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨. 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙚𝙣𝙫𝙤𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙮 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐖𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭
Ambassadors serve a vital and respected function in international relations. They are the living bridge between two nations — tasked with fostering trade, strengthening cultural ties, protecting their citizens abroad, and communicating their government’s positions through the appropriate channels. What they are not empowered to do — at least not without consequence to the relationship — is publicly prescribe policy reform to the governments before which they are accredited.
One need only apply the most basic test of reciprocity to appreciate the concern. Would Guyana’s Ambassador to Washington be received warmly if he took to an American media platform to publicly urge the U.S. Congress to overhaul its federal procurement system, or to demand that the Internal Revenue Service restructure its tax obligations to accommodate Guyanese businesses? The answer is self-evident.
𝙎𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙠𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙨𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 — 𝙗𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣

𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
What makes Ambassador Theriot’s remarks particularly striking is that they seem to overlook the extraordinary lengths to which Guyana has already gone to attract and accommodate foreign direct investment — American investment, specifically.
The terms under which ExxonMobil and its partners operate in Guyana’s offshore petroleum sector are, by any objective measure, among the most generous production sharing agreements in the world. Guyanese civil society, academics, and even some government officials have repeatedly raised concerns about whether the country negotiated adequately on behalf of its own citizens.

𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨, 𝙤𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙜𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙧 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨.
American companies enjoy the ability to repatriate capital freely, benefit from a relatively stable and dollarized business environment, and operate in a jurisdiction that has bent over backwards to present itself as investor-friendly. To then hear public calls for further accommodation — this time in the form of structural reforms to national procurement policy — is, frankly, difficult to reconcile with any fair reading of the existing investment landscape.

𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
The Ambassador’s concern about the absence of a bilateral tax treaty between the United States and Guyana is a legitimate one, and it is an issue that genuinely warrants resolution. Guyana has successfully negotiated double taxation agreements with Canada, the United Kingdom, CARICOM nations, and the United Arab Emirates. There is no principled reason why a similar arrangement with the United States should not be pursued with urgency.
However, there is a meaningful difference between working quietly and effectively through diplomatic and legislative channels to advance such an agreement — which Ambassador Theriot indicates her office is doing — and making the broader grievances of American corporations a subject of public commentary. The former is good diplomacy. The latter risks reducing a complex bilateral relationship to something that resembles corporate lobbying conducted from an embassy.
It is also worth noting that other international companies — British, Canadian, Caribbean — operate within the same regulatory framework without their respective ambassadors taking to media platforms to demand policy changes. If the framework is truly as burdensome as suggested, one might reasonably ask why this particular chorus has only one prominent voice.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐁𝐞 𝐈𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝
Ambassador Theriot’s remarks do not exist in a vacuum. They come at a moment when Guyana finds itself at the center of enormous geopolitical and commercial interest, driven by one of the most significant oil discoveries in recent history. Major powers are competing for influence, access, and partnership in this small South American nation, and that competition inevitably shapes the tone and content of diplomatic engagement.
In that context, it is important for Guyanese policymakers, civil society, and the public to develop a discerning eye for the difference between genuine partnership and advocacy dressed in the language of partnership. When a foreign ambassador uses a public platform to call for changes to a host nation’s procurement laws, tax architecture, and regulatory environment — however diplomatically framed — that is a moment that deserves careful scrutiny rather than quiet acceptance.

𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨. 𝙄𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮’𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙.
Reforms to procurement, taxation, and regulatory frameworks will come — and should come — but they will be most durable and most legitimate when they emerge from Guyana’s own democratic processes, informed by the needs of its own people.

𝐀 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝, 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩
None of this is to suggest that the United States is not a valued partner for Guyana, or that Ambassador Theriot’s underlying intentions are anything other than constructive. The bilateral relationship between the two countries holds genuine promise, and there is meaningful common ground on trade, energy, security, and development cooperation.

𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙢𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙪𝙢 𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮 — 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙩.
The right approach to tax treaty advocacy is sustained, respectful engagement with both governments’ finance officials — not public statements that place Guyana’s regulatory environment in an unflattering light before an international audience.
Ambassador Theriot has an opportunity to reset the tone of this conversation and to demonstrate that American diplomatic engagement with Guyana is rooted in genuine partnership rather than the expectation of preferential treatment. Guyana, for its part, has every right to expect nothing less.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙩, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧. 𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙗𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙨.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

𝐀𝐈, 𝐎𝐢𝐥 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚

May 1, 2026/in Opinions/by Staff Writer

𝗚𝘂𝘆𝗮𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗽𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹—𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁
Billions in oil revenues are flowing into state coffers at an unprecedented pace. Yet, for all this wealth, the structural realities remain deeply troubling: youth unemployment is persistently high, public healthcare and education systems are uneven at best, and procurement controversies continue to shadow major projects.
The uncomfortable truth is this—economic expansion is not translating into broad-based empowerment.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘄, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀, 𝗚𝘂𝘆𝗮𝗻𝗮 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿.

𝗢𝗶𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀.
Today, the government is increasingly financed not by the productive output of its people, but by resource rents generated offshore. This matters. When a state does not depend on its citizens for revenue, it has fewer incentives to be transparent, efficient, or accountable. Taxation historically forced negotiation. Oil revenues bypass it.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗚𝘂𝘆𝗮𝗻𝗮? 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗔𝗻𝗱, 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻, 𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆.
The Natural Resource Fund, heralded as a mechanism for safeguarding national wealth, remains a point of contention, with repeated concerns about withdrawals, oversight, and political control. Major infrastructure contracts continue to raise questions about transparency and value for money. Meanwhile, citizens—whose patrimony is being extracted at scale—are largely spectators to decisions that will define their economic future.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗜 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁.
As artificial intelligence and automation reduce the need for human labor across sectors, the economic relevance of the average worker will decline further. In Guyana, where oil already dominates and diversification remains more rhetorical than real, this could entrench a model where wealth is generated with minimal participation from the population.
𝗔 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀—𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀, 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀—𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗶𝗹 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗜-𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁? 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵.
This is how accountability erodes—not through the removal of elections, but through the quiet stripping of their economic meaning.
A population that is not central to production has less leverage. A government that does not need broad-based taxation feels less pressure to justify its decisions. And a political system awash in rents can sustain inefficiency, patronage, and selective development far longer than a tax-dependent one ever could.

𝗚𝘂𝘆𝗮𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘀.
Despite record revenues, there is no commensurate urgency in transforming education to prepare citizens for a technologically disrupted future. No clear national strategy to ensure that AI and digital transformation create opportunities rather than deepen exclusion. No robust, independent enforcement architecture that consistently reassures citizens that public funds are being managed with integrity.

𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻: 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸—𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗺𝘀.
If left unchecked, Guyana could become a country where wealth expands on paper while citizen power contracts in reality. A nation rich in resources, but poor in accountability. A democracy in form, but increasingly hollow in function.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲—𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.
Reversing course will require more than policy tweaks. It demands a fundamental shift in governance: enforceable transparency in the Natural Resource Fund, truly independent procurement oversight, aggressive investment in human capital, and a clear framework to ensure that emerging technologies serve the many—not the few.

𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰.
And if Guyana fails to confront this moment with honesty and urgency, we may soon discover that the greatest risk of our oil wealth—and our AI future—is not that it leaves us behind, but that it leaves most of us out.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.

𝐑𝐨𝐝𝐫𝐢́𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐳 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐳𝐮𝐞𝐥𝐚’𝐬 “𝐈𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞” 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐛𝐨 𝐀𝐦𝐢𝐝 𝐈𝐂𝐉 𝐓𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

April 29, 2026/in Local News, News/by Staff Writer

Venezuela’s interim Head of State, Delcy Rodríguez, has forcefully reaffirmed Caracas’ claim to Guyana’s Essequibo region, declaring that Venezuela’s “rights” to the territory are “historical and irrefutable,” even as the matter remains before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Speaking Tuesday in Caracas at a Pilgrimage Against Sanctions event, Rodríguez dismissed criticism surrounding a brooch she wore during recent visits to Barbados and Grenada, which appeared to depict Essequibo as part of Venezuela.

“That is the only map I have known my entire life,” she said, questioning whether Venezuela’s history books should now be “burned” in response to objections raised by Guyanese authorities.

Rodríguez insisted that Venezuela would soon present its case again before the ICJ, grounding its position in what she described as “international legality” and the 1966 Geneva Agreement. “There’s no way we’re going to allow a dispossession or legitimize a theft,” she stated.

Her remarks signal a renewed hardening of Venezuela’s posture on the decades-old border controversy, even as her administration has recently adopted a more conciliatory tone toward the United States following the January 2025 ousting of Nicolás Maduro.

Ali Condemns “Provocative Symbolism”

President Irfaan Ali, in a formal communication to CARICOM Chairman Dr. Terrence Drew, sharply criticised Rodríguez’s use of the disputed map during official regional engagements.

He warned that such displays risk creating the perception of regional acquiescence to Venezuela’s claim and undermine the integrity of CARICOM platforms.

“This is not a matter of symbolism alone,” Ali wrote. “It is a calculated and provocative assertion of a claim that Guyana has consistently and lawfully rejected, and which is before the International Court of Justice for final adjudication.”

Ali stressed that with the case actively before the ICJ, Venezuela should refrain from actions that attempt to “normalise” its claim through unofficial symbols, maps, or public displays.

He further called on all states to respect international law and avoid conduct that could inflame tensions or prejudice the judicial process.

Caracas Pushes Back

Venezuela’s Foreign Affairs Minister Yván Gil dismissed Ali’s concerns as “unusual” and accused the Guyanese leader of political theatrics.

“Is he going to ban maps, history books, or any symbols he is uncomfortable with?” Gil wrote on social media, defending the brooch as a representation of Venezuela’s historical narrative.

He characterized Guyana’s objections as “noise” and “drama,” asserting that Venezuela’s territorial claim remains unchanged. “Venezuela’s sun rises in the Essequibo,” he declared.

A Dispute Rooted in History

The controversy over the Essequibo region—comprising roughly two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass—dates back to the 1899 Arbitral Award, which definitively established the boundary between Venezuela and then-British Guiana.

Venezuela has long rejected that ruling as invalid, reviving its claim in the 1960s as Guyana approached independence. The 1966 Geneva Agreement established a framework for resolving the controversy, but no settlement has been reached.

Tensions escalated in 2023 when then-President Maduro unveiled a new Venezuelan map incorporating Essequibo and appointed a governor for the territory, drawing widespread international condemnation.

The dispute is now before the ICJ, where Guyana seeks final confirmation of the 1899 boundary.

Regional and International Stakes

The controversy has intensified amid growing geopolitical pressure in the region, including increased U.S. military activity in the Caribbean and warnings against any Venezuelan attempt to assert its claim by force.

Rodríguez’s latest statements suggest that despite recent diplomatic recalibrations, Caracas is unwilling to soften its position on Essequibo—keeping the territorial dispute at the forefront of regional tensions.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦

𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬? 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐠𝐬 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫

April 29, 2026/in Editorial/by Staff Writer

𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐓𝐨 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰 ??

Serious and deeply troubling allegations are mounting against a traffic inspector stationed at Vreed-en-Hoop ,on the West Coast with multiple complaints pointing to what appears to be a stark disconnect between public service income and a visibly extravagant lifestyle.

Reports describe access to several high-end vehicles and a residence that, by all accounts, rivals or exceeds those of far more senior ranks within the Guyana Police Force. For a serving officer, this raises unavoidable and legitimate questions—questions that cannot simply be brushed aside or ignored.

But the concern does not end with appearances.

Public transport operators—minibus drivers and taxi operators trying to earn an honest living—are alleging what they describe as relentless and heavy-handed targeting. Vehicles reportedly clamped the moment they stop for passengers, enforcement actions carried out with unusual intensity, and a pattern that many say feels less like policing and more like pressure.

At the same time, allegations have surfaced suggesting that those in the officer’s immediate circle may not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny or enforcement—fueling perceptions of selective policing and abuse of authority.

These are not minor complaints. These are allegations that strike at the very core of fairness, integrity, and public trust in law enforcement.

Let us be clear: these claims remain unproven at this stage. However, the volume, consistency, and seriousness of the reports demand urgent and uncompromising scrutiny.

We are calling on the Police Service Commission, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and all relevant anti-corruption bodies to immediately initiate a thorough and transparent investigation into these matters. Silence or inaction will only deepen public suspicion and erode confidence in the system.

If these allegations are unfounded, let that be established swiftly and publicly. But if there is any truth to them, then decisive action must follow—without fear or favor.

The public is watching. And they are demanding answers.

𝐆𝐨𝐯’𝐭 𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭 — 𝐀 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐅𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭

April 29, 2026/in Editorial/by Staff Writer

The Government’s plan to establish a dedicated forensic interview (FI) unit for child abuse victims signals a long-overdue acknowledgment of systemic gaps in the protection of vulnerable children. Human Services and Social Security Minister, Dr Vindhya Persaud, announced the initiative as part of a broader strategy to improve response time and access in abuse cases.

At present, forensic interviews — a critical component in securing evidence and protecting victims — are conducted by non-governmental organisations such as ChildLink and Blossoms Inc., with support from the Child Protection Agency (CPA). The State’s move to assume direct responsibility is, therefore, a welcome development.

However, while the creation of a forensic interview unit represents progress, it raises a deeper question: why has it taken this long, and why is the scope still so limited?

Forensic interviews are only one piece of a fractured system. The real deficiency lies in the absence of a fully integrated, dedicated investigative framework that follows each case from report to prosecution. As it stands, cases are passed between multiple actors — Child Protection Officers, police, medical personnel, NGOs — creating dangerous gaps where accountability can falter and critical evidence can be compromised.

A more effective model would see the establishment of a specialised investigative unit assigned to each case from the outset. That officer or team should be responsible for coordinating every stage — from securing timely medical examinations to liaising with child protection services and ensuring case files are meticulously prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Without that continuity, the system remains vulnerable to the very breakdowns the Minister herself acknowledged: inconsistent reporting, delays, and poorly prepared case files that can determine whether justice is served or denied.

Dr Persaud rightly highlighted the importance of precision in case documentation, noting that “what you write is how a case can go left or right.” Yet this only underscores the urgency of structural reform. Training alone cannot fix a system where responsibility is fragmented and diffused.

Equally concerning is the ongoing shortage of Child Protection Officers, a limitation that continues to undermine even the most well-intentioned programmes, including the Rapid Response initiative. A single officer in a region is not a solution — it is a stopgap.

The Government’s planned digital tracking system is another positive step, promising greater oversight of case progression. But tracking failures after they occur is not a substitute for preventing them through cohesive case management.

Child abuse cases demand urgency, sensitivity, and above all, consistency. Victims cannot afford a system where responsibility is shared but accountability is unclear.

There is also a growing concern about the extent of ministerial involvement in operational oversight. While accountability is critical, the system cannot function efficiently if it is being micro-managed at the political level. The Minister’s role should be to establish policy, ensure resources are in place, and conduct periodic audits to assess performance — not to track individual case movements or intervene in routine procedural matters. Effective child protection depends on empowering trained professionals to carry out their duties without undue interference, while holding them accountable through structured oversight mechanisms, not constant direct supervision.

If the Government is serious about reform, it must move beyond incremental fixes and commit to building a unified, end-to-end investigative mechanism — one that eliminates gaps, assigns clear responsibility, and ensures that no child’s case is left to drift between agencies.

Anything less risks perpetuating the very failures this new unit is intended to solve.

“𝐆𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐈𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥”

April 29, 2026/in Culture & Society/by Staff Writer

Something has changed on our streets: the garbage is no longer just a nuisance—it’s everywhere, thick, inescapable, and suddenly impossible to ignore. It’s not just that people are a little sloppier; it’s as if the city has been designed to look like a dump. This feels less like neglect and more like a deliberate, orchestrated spectacle.

Read it through the lens of Forbes Burnham’s thinking, and this is what he would call a casus belli: a manufactured provocation, carefully framed to justify a bigger political move. The PPP‑led government allows enforcement to slacken, lets contractors and public agencies operate with impunity, and then lets the streets speak for them. The image of a filthy, “broken” city becomes the visual proof that the City Council is “dysfunctional” and therefore unfit to govern.

The real purpose is obvious: to build a narrative that only the central government can “fix” the city—by taking control, stripping away autonomy, and expanding its own power. The garbage is not an accident or a coincidence; it is a political weapon, a slow‑burn provocation meant to erode public confidence in local leadership.

When the streets are this visibly abused, the call for a “strong hand” from above starts to sound reasonable, even noble.

So when you see that pile of trash deliberately left at the corner, or those bags rotting on the sidewalk, don’t just see laziness—see a casus belli in progress: a carefully staged crisis to justify a power grab over the City Council.

The Wales Watchdog Series: Part 111

April 29, 2026/in Investigative Report/by Staff Writer

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 $𝟭𝟬𝟮𝗠 “𝗣𝗼𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗹”

𝗕𝗬: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝟱𝟵𝟮 𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗞𝗘𝗘𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗬

If Part I exposed the contractor’s checkered past and Part II mapped the offshore shell games, Part III uncovers the most disturbing layer of the Gas-to-Energy (GtE) project:

The Inside Job. A project of this magnitude requires robust legal defense to protect the national interest. Instead, The 592 Guardian has found that the lines between the “Defender of the State” and the “Counsel for the Contractor” were not just blurred—they were non-existent.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 “𝗗𝗢𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧” 𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗡𝗘𝗬: 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗥𝗔 𝗞𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗢𝗢𝗡

At the center of this web sits Devindra Kissoon, the founding member of London House Chambers and the President of the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) Guyana. Our investigation into the UK “Paper Trail” and local High Court filings has confirmed a stunning conflict of interest that effectively “disarmed” the Government of Guyana (GoG) before negotiations even began.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀:

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘂𝗺’𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁: As early as 2021, Kissoon and his firm were retained by the CH4-Lindsayca network. London House Chambers publicly boasts of representing the consortium to “secure” the natural gas plant deal.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁: Simultaneously, Kissoon has served as a prominent retained counsel for the Minister of Natural Resources and the state-owned Guyana Power and Light (GPL)—the very entity that must buy the power Lindsayca produces.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗞 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Our forensic look at 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗦𝗔𝗬𝗖𝗔 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗟𝗟𝗣 (𝗢𝗖𝟰𝟰𝟰𝟴𝟴𝟮)—the UK entity used to trigger the US$102M arbitration—shows it was registered on November 30, 2022. Kissoon, a UK-qualified barrister and “London House” principal, is alleged to have been instrumental in engineering this specific UK-based structure to “armor” the contractor against local Guyanese oversight.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 “𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗜𝗟𝗟”: 𝗔 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗥𝗕𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

The US$102.7 million loss wasn’t a failure of luck; it was a failure by design.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿: Sources indicate that during the formation of the contract, Winston Brassington (Head of the GtE Taskforce) specifically requested that the contractors grant a “waiver” to allow Kissoon to provide the legal opinion on the arbitration venue and dispute resolution clauses.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁:The GoG essentially allowed the contractor’s lawyer to help write the rules for how the contractor could sue the GoG.

When the contractor triggered the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAAB) using the UK-Guyana Treaty, the government found itself trapped in a legal framework it had paid its own “double agent” to build. The result? A US$102,679,839 bill that taxpayers are now paying in installments, while the legal minds behind the deal remain insulated by high-level political connections.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗠𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗠 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗥

By utilizing his position as AMCHAM President, Kissoon helped present the consortium as a “Tier-One American Engineering” powerhouse.

This polished, US-backed veneer effectively blinded Guyanese evaluators to the reality:that the entity was a debt-heavy vehicle with a history of FBI raids (via the CH4/Bellosta network) and shell-company maneuvers.

“𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳, 𝘢 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺.”— 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲, 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝘀

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗡’𝗦 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗧

The US$102M payout is the price of collusion. When the person advising the Ministry on how to protect the public purse is the same person advising the contractor on how to extract from it, the public loses every time. This was not a negotiation; it was a coordinated transfer of wealth.

This add-on to Part III serves as a “Financial Health Warning” for both local and diaspora investors. It unmasks the legal machinery that has turned a national project into a private enclave.

𝗔𝗗𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗨𝗠 𝗧𝗢 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗜𝗜𝗜: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗞𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗢𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗦

𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗞𝗲𝘆” 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗹𝘆

While the public sees Devindra Kissoon as a prominent attorney and the face of AMCHAM Guyana, The 592 Guardian has identified him as the “Master Key” that unlocks the Guyanese Treasury for the Lindsayca-CH4 consortium. His positioning is not merely a series of coincidences; it is a strategic occupation of every seat at the negotiating table.

1.𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗼: 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 :To understand how the US$102.7M arbitration loss happened, one must look at the names on Kissoon’s ledger. He is simultaneously:

• 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿:

Representing the Lindsayca-CH4 consortium during the inception of the GtE project.

• 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆: Serving as the personal legal representative for Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo (the chief architect of the GtE project).

• 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝘆𝗲𝗿: Providing legal services to Guyana Power and Light (GPL)—the state entity forced to absorb the costs of the project’s delays.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁:

Operating as President of AMCHAM, where he “vets” incoming US and diaspora firms, effectively deciding who gets to play in the Wales arena.

2.𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗿” 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲: Our investigation has uncovered that the current Expressions of Interest (EOI) for the Fertilizer and Gas Bottling plants carry the same “DNA” as the original power plant deal.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆: By incorporating these new entities as Private Companies rather than Public Corporations, Kissoon’s legal framework ensures they are exempt from the Public Procurement Act.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸:This allows the government to bypass open competitive bidding and move directly to a “Preferred Bidder” status for Lindsayca—the same company currently holding the government hostage for an additional US$250M.

3.𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟬% 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽: To the Guyanese Diaspora looking to “invest in home,” beware of the fine print. The EOI documents—reportedly structured under Kissoon’s guidance—feature a 10% Guaranteed Annual Return.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽: This guarantee is not backed by the profits of the fertilizer plant (which doesn’t exist yet); it is backed by the Consolidated Fund.

• 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: If the project fails or the contractor (Lindsayca) mismanages the funds—as they have in the Dominican Republic—the Guyanese taxpayer is legally obligated to pay the investors their 10%. You aren’t investing in a business; you are investing in a debt instrument that your own relatives in Guyana will have to pay back through taxes.

𝟰. 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 “𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱”

We have confirmed through UK Companies House records that the registration of LINDSAYCA DEVELOPMENT LLP was a surgical strike. By placing the entity in a jurisdiction with a favorable treaty, Kissoon provided the contractor with a “legal armor” that our local Attorney General’s chambers was either too incompetent or too complicit to challenge.

“𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘯 𝘎𝘶𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘢, 𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦.”—

𝗘𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟱𝟵𝟮 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻

𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗡𝗘𝗫𝗧 | 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗜𝗩: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗢𝗜

𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗; 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘇𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗼 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗕𝗼𝘅” 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀: How the US$340M Fertilizer and Gas Bottling Deals are Being Hidden from Public Scrutiny. We will break down the specific terms of the EOI and why the “Private Entity” status is a death knell for transparency.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘇𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗼 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴—A side-by-side comparison of the failed DR project and the current Wales trajectory.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝟱𝟵𝟮 𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗡: 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱-𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵. 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁. 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀, 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 — 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.

𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠

April 29, 2026/in Opinions/by Staff Writer

𝐁𝐘: 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟-𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝟓𝟗𝟐 𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐍

Guyana’s Minister of Local Government, Priya Manickchand, has launched a scathing attack on CARICOM leaders for engaging Venezuelan official Delcy Rodríguez while she sported a brooch depicting the Essequibo as Venezuelan territory. Her outrage, framed around the sanctity of sovereignty and principle, is—on the surface—understandable. But it is also transparently selective, and that very selectivity strips her position of any remaining moral authority.

Minister Manickchand correctly declared that “principle shouldn’t be convenient.” Yet, convenience has become the hallmark of this administration’s foreign policy. For decades, Cuba stood as a pillar of support for Guyana, providing critical medical expertise that our system relied upon. When the United States exerted pressure, Guyana turned its back on Havana, quietly terminating the Cuban Medical Brigade programme. Where was the public outcry regarding sovereignty and loyalty then? Apparently, principle only applies when it aligns with Washington’s current geopolitical push.

This duplicity is echoed in the recent missive from President Irfaan Ali to the CARICOM Chairman, in which he essentially demands that regional partners calibrate their bilateral engagements to suit Guyana’s sensitivities. It is a bold, if not arrogant, demand for a government that has remained notably silent when other CARICOM nations were being penalized by external powers for failing to fall in line with US interests.

To demand unwavering solidarity from one’s neighbours while exercising cold, opportunistic flexibility at home is a contradiction that does not go unnoticed in regional capitals.

CARICOM is a community of sovereign nations, not an extension of Georgetown’s foreign policy apparatus. Small island states, having navigated years of energy dependency through Petro-diplomacy, are being lectured by an administration that chose to align with Trinidad and Tobago—and by extension, Washington—at the expense of regional cohesion.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring when one looks inward. The government insists that the world must respect Guyana’s sovereignty, yet it refuses to practice that same respect within our own borders. The Attorney General and the President have actively shunned the Leader of the Opposition, denying him a seat at the table to be properly apprised of the upcoming ICJ proceedings. If this administration cannot be bothered to build a unified national front at home, it has no business demanding that CARICOM leaders carry that burden for them abroad.

Sovereignty is not merely a slogan to be brandished at regional summits; it is a responsibility upheld through transparency and inclusion. By excluding domestic stakeholders, the government weakens the very cause it seeks to defend.

Venezuela’s provocative use of symbols is an attempt to project authority where it has none, and it certainly warrants objection. But let us be clear: this is not a loyalty test that Guyana is qualified to administer. You cannot outsource your own integrity.

President Ali and Minister Manickchand are currently posturing as defenders of the realm, yet their actions border on the very bullyism they claim to oppose. They demand from our neighbours a standard they refuse to hold themselves to, assuming that CARICOM will act as a subservient instrument of their selective outrage. They are mistaken.

Diplomacy in the Caribbean is a complex balancing act, and if Guyana wishes to command genuine support, it must stop demanding compliance and start leading with consistency.

𝙎𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙩𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙤𝙢𝙚. 𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨, 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦? 𝐍𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐚𝐥𝐥’𝐬 𝐅𝐈𝐃𝐈𝐂 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐭

April 29, 2026/in Editorial/by Staff Writer

𝐁𝐘:𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟 — 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟓𝟗𝟐 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧

In the glittering halls of the Grand Coastal Hotel, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, preached the gospel of “stronger contract systems” to a captive audience of engineers, lawyers, and procurement officers. The three-day FIDIC workshop, he declared, is part of a “transformation agenda” to equip public servants for Guyana’s infrastructure boom. Contracts are being reviewed, performance bonds tightened, remedies sharpened—modern global standards to protect public coffers. Sounds impressive. Except it’s the same tired script from a government addicted to announcements over action.

Nandlall’s pitch lands flat against the backdrop of Guyana’s procurement scandals. Take the $100 million+ streetlights saga: 100,000 units promised nationwide, bids opened publicly at the National Procurement and Tender Administration (NPTAB) with 26 companies competing across four lots. Yet where are the audits? The geo-location checks proving lights actually work? The contractor performance reports? Public Works Minister Bishop Juan Edghill boasts 22,000 installed, but the trail goes cold—no transparent milestone verifications, no public blacklist enforcement, no evidence that payments matched deliverables. This isn’t weak contracts; it’s weak wills.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨-𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞: 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐃𝐨 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 (𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐄𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡)

No one disputes that Guyana’s contract toolkit is archaic. Decades-old templates invite ambiguity, disputes, and delays. FIDIC standards could impose clearer notice requirements, robust performance securities, and efficient dispute resolution—tools to make breaches costlier and execution swifter. Training public officers to wield them might reduce the low-hanging fruit of incompetence. Nandlall’s review of existing agreements aligns with President Ali’s modernization rhetoric, and in theory, it could align Guyana with global best practices.

But theory evaporates under scrutiny. Strong contracts don’t self-enforce. Blacklisted contractors morph into new shells via compliant proxies. Ministers “rescue” lagging projects by handing them to cronies over a rum punch. One firm scoops 10 contracts, capacity be damned, because the outcome was sealed long before bids hit the table. Nandlall’s expedition fixes none of this. It polishes the facade while the rot festers in enforcement gaps and political discretion.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫: 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬

Guyana’s procurement failures aren’t born of flimsy legalese—they stem from a culture where easy money trumps accountability. The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) flags nothing on streetlights despite the red flags. No-bid whispers persist despite tender announcements. Algorithms for evaluation and awards? Now that’s a conversation worth having: automated scoring, beneficial ownership scans, real-time capacity checks, geo-tagged proofs of work. Remove the “phone call” discretion that predetermines winners.

Yet even algorithms need incorruptible inputs. Without public dashboards tracking bids, awards, variations, and audits, they become black boxes for favoritism. Nandlall’s workshop ignores this. It trains officers but doesn’t arm citizens with data to hold them accountable.

𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝: 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝

The 592 Guardian is watching. Every FIDIC-trained engineer, every reviewed contract, every “modernized” tender must now prove itself. Publish the streetlights contractor lists, payment schedules, and installation maps. Enforce the blacklists with teeth. Tie releases to verified geo-data and independent audits. Fail that, and this dog-and-pony show reveals itself as what it is: elite theater for a public footing the bill.

Guyana deserves systems that work, not sermons. Nandlall, the ball’s in your court. We’re clued in, and we’ll monitor every deliverable. Stingy enforcement won’t cut it anymore.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 ,

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—

Fastest Growing, Fundamentally Fragile

Diplomacy Has Boundaries – Even for Allies

𝐀𝐈, 𝐎𝐢𝐥 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚

𝐑𝐨𝐝𝐫𝐢́𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐳 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐳𝐮𝐞𝐥𝐚’𝐬 “𝐈𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞” 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐛𝐨 𝐀𝐦𝐢𝐝 𝐈𝐂𝐉 𝐓𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬? 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐠𝐬 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫

The Wales Watchdog Series: Part 111

Contact Us

Popular Categories

Archive

Archive for year: 2026

Contact Us

Popular Categories

Archive