592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM◊GUYANA

THE ASSET —When Washington Says the Quiet Part Aloud

---

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar— August 2026

There is a particular kind of admission that no investigative reporter can manufacture: the one a government makes about itself, on the record, because it no longer sees anything to hide.

That is what happened when Mauricio Claver-Carone — until recently the Trump administration’s informal envoy to Venezuela, operating with what sources describe as outsized influence behind the scenes — was asked by Reuters to explain why Alejandro Betancourt, a Venezuelan businessman under active criminal investigation in two European jurisdictions, was being used as a channel between Washington and Caracas.

He did not deny it. He confirmed it. Betancourt, he said, understood the oil business in both countries and could build the bridge the administration needed. A diplomatic source went further in comments to EL PAÍS: “He’s a U.S. asset and they use him. Betancourt has understood how to sell himself and the Americans are buyers.”

Set that sentence beside what has now been documented, and the picture stops being a matter of inference.

THE INTERVENTION

Betancourt is not a marginal figure awaiting the outcome of routine due diligence. He is the founder of Derwick Associates, the company that received at least eleven no-bid Venezuelan thermoelectric contracts worth roughly $5 billion under Hugo Chávez — contracts that, according to Transparencia Venezuela, were overpriced by some $2.9 billion, and several of which never delivered the power they were paid to generate. He is, by name, the reason the term “bolichico” exists in Venezuelan political vocabulary: the young, connected operator enriched by the Bolivarian state without the burden of prior experience.

He is also, as of this writing, the subject of a reopened Spanish National High Court case alleging that he and his partners bribed three PDVSA officials with $42 million to help defraud $4.85 billion through currency-exchange manipulation — a case built on an earlier Swiss money-laundering investigation, which was itself built on a U.S. inquiry whose defendants have already been convicted.

Zurich prosecutors confirmed to Global Investigations Review in May that their underlying probe into Betancourt remains active. Switzerland froze his assets, alongside those of Nicolás Maduro and other politically exposed persons, in January of this year.

None of that has been resolved. None of it has been dropped.

What has changed is narrower, and far more revealing: according to reporting by the Washington Post, senior U.S. officials — Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Landau, former Attorney General Pam Bondi, and former Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche among them — made direct contact with Swiss authorities to press for exactly one outcome.

Not Betancourt’s innocence. Not the closure of the investigation. His freedom of movement. Bondi and Blanche, per that reporting, explicitly asked Switzerland to resolve the matter without criminal charges or prison time. In May, Zurich’s prosecutor’s office withdrew the extradition order that had confined Betancourt to bail in the United Kingdom.

The State Department, around the same time, issued him a multiple-entry U.S. visa.

Read the sequence plainly. Named American officials, operating through named channels, asked a European justice system to let a man facing a $4.85 billion fraud allegation walk free of the mechanism that would have compelled him to answer for it — not because the case lacked merit, but because his liberty served a policy objective.

Zurich did not clear him. It removed the tool that would have brought him before a court.

THE OBJECTIVE

That objective is not obscure. It is, if anything, the one part of this story Washington has been willing to state outright: a functioning intermediary between the United States and the post-Maduro government of Delcy Rodríguez, at the precise moment both governments are negotiating the restructuring of Venezuela’s oil sector, its mining concessions, and its sovereign debt.

Betancourt has obliged. Flight records reviewed by EL PAÍS place him back in Caracas on June 27, days after two earthquakes killed more than 6,000 people, traveling with his wife and a small entourage on a private aircraft from Palm Beach. He returned in July — though the paper trail for that second trip is, by any editor’s standard, strange enough to warrant its own scrutiny.

One flight plan places Betancourt and a party of Spanish investors aboard a Venezuela-bound charter on July 22. A second version of the same flight — same aircraft, same crew, same route, filed while the plane was airborne — replaces every name on that list with two others: Laura Hietamies, a Finnish financier, and her husband Jacob Hirshman, co-founder of the crypto- and defense-linked digital bank Erebor, who has himself made repeated trips to Caracas this year to link Venezuela to the U.S. financial system.

Neither Hietamies nor Hirshman responded to EL PAÍS’s questions. Neither did Betancourt. A source familiar with the case called the substitution a deliberate attempt to obscure his presence in the country.

By July 30, Betancourt was flying out again — this time alongside the co-founders of Heeney Capital, a mining-focused investment firm that in May signed advance purchase agreements for Venezuelan gold and mineral projects as part of a White House-backed push to revive the sector.

The pattern that emerges is not one of a private citizen quietly managing his own legal exposure. It is a state-adjacent operator moving between Washington’s diplomatic apparatus and Caracas’s oil, mining, and debt portfolios, on flights whose paperwork does not consistently agree with itself, at the same time his own government’s investigators — in a country whose president has publicly promised to clean up precisely this kind of arrangement — decline to press the matter, and whose American sponsors have taken active steps to see that no other jurisdiction does either.

WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES — AND WHAT IT DOES NOT

It would overreach to say Washington’s conduct here proves personal financial gain for the officials involved; nothing in the record supports that, and accountability journalism loses its force the moment it claims more than its sourcing carries. What the record does support, on named officials and on-the-record institutional confirmation rather than anonymous insinuation, is narrower and no less serious: that the United States government, through its most senior law-enforcement and diplomatic officials, treated a foreign criminal investigation as an obstacle to strategic access — and moved to clear it, not by contesting the evidence, but by asking the investigating state to look past it.

That is not a footnote to hemispheric policy. It is the policy, stated by the men who made it.

— The Board

592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊ INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM◊ GUYANA

The Certificate Cannot Certify What the State Won’t Publish

---

EDITORIAL · OPEN DATA & INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

 A government training agency wants to claim a “world-class workforce” for Guyana. It cannot, because the state has built no mechanism for anyone outside it to check the claim — and the one office created to force that disclosure has been left to fail by design.

By the Editor – August, 2026

The Board of Industrial Training’s Chief Executive Officer, Richard Maughn, returned from a U.S. State Department leadership program this month with an assessment that Guyana is “on track in building a world-class labour market,” missing only greater collaboration between agencies to complete the picture. The claim was carried, uncontested, in the Guyana Chronicle. It should not have been.

Not because the training programs Maughn describes are fictional, and not because collaboration between agencies is a bad idea. The claim should not have gone uncontested because there is no way for a member of the Guyanese public, an academic, a civil society organisation, or an independent journalist to verify it. Guyana has no statutory requirement that any public agency — the Board of Industrial Training included — publish the workforce data, disaggregated by sector, nationality, and employer, that a claim like “world-class workforce” would need to survive contact with evidence. What exists instead is an architecture of non-disclosure, anchored by a single office that has spent more than a decade demonstrating what happens when transparency is optional.

A DECADE OF DORMANCY, PRICED AT $40 MILLION

That office is the Commissioner of Information, established under the Access to Information Act of 2011 to give the Guyanese public a statutory right to demand records from public bodies. Kaieteur News reported on February 10, 2026 — during the first day of consideration of the 2026 Budget Estimates — that the office has produced no annual reports, engaged in little to no meaningful contact with media, and given little to no response to citizens or civil society seeking public information, for more than a decade.

The government’s response to that record, per the same report, was to allocate $40 million to the office in this year’s budget, $33.5 million of it earmarked for the Commissioner’s own salary and benefits. The allocation was challenged on the floor of the National Assembly by an opposition parliamentarian during budget scrutiny; a government minister present committed to writing the Commissioner to press for compliance.

An office with no annual reports for over a decade was budgeted $40 million to continue operating exactly as it has.

Kaieteur News’s reporting adds a detail that sharpens the accountability failure: the ruling party’s own 2025 election manifesto promised full enforcement of the Access to Information Act if returned to office, and the Vice President said publicly that improvement should follow a win. The party won. Kaieteur News reports no notable change followed.

This is not an absence of promises. It is an absence of consequence for breaking them.

That finding is corroborated independently. A press freedom assessment published in April 2026 by the Inter American Press Association’s affiliated monitoring project found that the Access to Information Act, passed in 2011, is not functioning in practice; that numerous information requests from civil society and media have gone unanswered; and that the government added resources to the Commissioner’s office in the 2026 budget without attaching any guarantee of accountability.

Two independently reported sources — a domestic outlet covering a budget debate, and a regional press freedom monitor assessing the state of Guyanese journalism — arrive at the same conclusion by different routes.

THE PICKET, THE PRE-ACTION NOTICE, AND THE JUDICIAL REVIEW

The clearest demonstration of what that dormancy costs in practice belongs to Christopher Ram — chartered accountant, attorney, and one of Guyana’s most persistent civic advocates on matters of public disclosure. Ram is a public figure who has made his advocacy on this issue a matter of open record, and his effort to force the Commissioner’s office to function is worth tracing in full, because it shows an escalation, not a single complaint.

In late March and early April 2025, Ram organized a picket outside the Commissioner’s office at 340 East Street, Georgetown, joined by lawyers, opposition Members of Parliament, independent media, and transparency organizations, according to Kaieteur News’s contemporaneous coverage. Ram said the group’s information requests had been rebuffed on what he characterized as absurd grounds — including, he said, the Commissioner’s insistence on being addressed by his full honorific title before engaging with a request at all. Ram announced the picket would run for four weeks, escalating to the Office of the President — which holds portfolio responsibility for the Commissioner’s office — if the government did not respond.

The government did not respond in the way Ram sought. On April 23 and 24, 2025, Demerara Waves and Stabroek News reported that Ram had escalated to formal legal action: pre-action notices served on the Minister of Natural Resources and on the Commissioner himself, over the continued withholding of records related to the 2016 ExxonMobil Production Sharing Agreement — an agreement governing the disposition of Guyana’s single largest natural asset. By May 16 and 17, 2025, Stabroek News reported that Ram had filed what was described as Guyana’s first judicial review action under the Access to Information Act, alleging that the Commissioner’s conduct amounted to a systematic refusal to enforce the nation’s transparency law and constituted, in Ram’s words as reported, a constitutional crisis in government accountability.

That litigation remains a live thread in Ram’s public advocacy more than a year later. In a column published by Kaieteur News in May 2026, Ram named the Commissioner of Information’s continued, functionally unoccupied status alongside a dormant Constitutional Reform Commission and an opposition-chaired Public Accounts Committee that has not been permitted to meet — leaving years of Auditor General findings on public expenditure in the range of four to five billion United States dollars unexamined by the body constitutionally tasked with examining them.

Ram’s own assessment, as reported, was that Guyana’s democratic and accountability institutions are decaying under the weight of oil-era public spending, precisely because no institution with the power to compel disclosure is being permitted to use it.

FROM ARCHITECTURE TO WORKFORCE DATA

This publication has argued before — in response to a Stabroek News commentary on inter-agency information silos — that Guyana’s information failures are not a matter of institutional culture that better collaboration can fix. They are a matter of architecture. There is no statutory mandate compelling public agencies to produce and publish machine-readable data on a regular schedule. There is no independent regulator empowered to compel disclosure or sanction its refusal.

The Commissioner of Information was meant to be exactly that regulator. The record above is what happens when the office is funded to exist and not funded, staffed, or held accountable to function.

The Board of Industrial Training’s claim to a “world-class workforce” has to be read inside that architecture, not outside it. No labour force survey, sectoral employment breakdown, or work-permit disclosure accompanying Maughn’s remarks is available to the public through any standing government data channel. What is publicly available instead comes from two sources: international bodies, whose reports on Guyana’s labour and governance conditions are cited precisely because they are the only figures anyone outside government can obtain — and direct, physical observation of who is actually working on the ground.

This publication’s own reporting on Sigma Engineers Ltd. Inc., the Bangladesh-linked contractor holding a portfolio of Guyana Water Inc. contracts now confirmed at close to twelve billion Guyana dollars, is illustrative of the second category. Photographic evidence obtained in the course of that investigation — including an image published by Guyana Water Inc.’s own official account, captioned as showing “several Guyanese staff” — shows a workforce that is visually, overwhelmingly South Asian, standing alongside Guyana Water Inc.’s own Chief Executive Officer at a completed plant site.

Whether that composition reflects lawful work permits, documented labour-market testing, or compliance with the local-hiring obligations that apply to engineering and technical contracts under Guyana’s legal framework has not been disclosed by any government agency and cannot currently be verified against any published dataset.

That is not a gap in this publication’s reporting. It is the gap the state has left standing.

A workforce claim that cannot be checked against published data is not a finding. It is an assertion, made by the same government that funds an information office to sit idle and answers civic advocacy with a promise to write a stern letter. Guyana does not need another certificate, another training pipeline announcement, or another appeal for inter-agency collaboration to reach a world-class workforce.

It needs a legal obligation to publish the data that would let the public judge whether one exists — procurement records, work-permit issuances by sector and nationality, labour-market testing outcomes, and the Commissioner of Information’s own annual reports, filed on schedule, for the first time in over a decade.

Until that obligation exists in law, with a penalty attached to its breach, claims like Maughn’s will keep arriving exactly as this one did: unaccompanied by evidence, unchallenged by the outlet that carried it, and unverifiable by anyone the claim was supposedly made to.

— The Board

SOURCES

Guyana Chronicle, “BIT CEO says, emphasises need for greater collaboration,” August 2026.

Kaieteur News, “‘$40M for silence’ – Govt. allocates millions for unresponsive office of commissioner of information,” February 10, 2026.

Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa (SIP-IAPA) affiliated press freedom report on Guyana, April 20, 2026.

Kaieteur News, “Protest against Commissioner of Information continues today,” April 4, 2025.

Demerara Waves, “Christopher Ram threatens legal action over no information on oil agreement,” April 23, 2025.

Stabroek News, “Ram serves pre-action notices to Bharrat, Ramson over failure to provide oil info,” April 24, 2025.

Stabroek News, “Ram files judicial review case against Commissioner of Information,” May 17, 2025.

Kaieteur News, “Resource curse has taken root in Guyana – Ram warns,” May 4, 2026.

The 592 Guardian, prior reporting: “Beyond Polite Suggestions: Guyana Needs Open Data by Law, Not by Goodwill”; ongoing Sigma Engineers Ltd. Inc. investigation.

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ ACCOUNTABILITY♦ INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

On the APA, Carbon Financing, Chinese Landing, and FPIC

---

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar August 2026

Do you remember the narrative that the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) was somehow trying to block climate finance — carbon credits money — from reaching Amerindian communities?

That was never how 592 Guardian  understood the issue. If you understand what Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) actually means, the position becomes much clearer.

When we read APA’s submission to the ART Secretariat at the time, we understood where they were coming from. It was not a position against Indigenous communities receiving funding or benefiting from development. Why would an Indigenous rights organisation want to prevent Indigenous communities from benefiting from resources intended for their development? That interpretation, to 592 Guardian, was absurd — but it certainly supported a political narrative, one the government itself actively cultivated.

Vice President Jagdeo publicly attacked the APA over its complaint; the Guyana Chronicle ran a piece titled “They do not speak for us,” quoting a government-aligned figure accusing APA of the very consent violation it had alleged; and a pro-government outlet later framed APA’s failed appeal as “a failed political attempt to stymie the development of Amerindian Villages,” pointedly noting Guyana earned US$150 million in 2023 ART-TREES payments — as if the size of the payment were itself an answer to the process question APA was asking.

The issue, to our understanding, was how the decision was made, who made it, and whether Indigenous peoples had actually consented to it. And this is where FPIC becomes important.

FPIC is not a mechanism to say “yes” or “no” after everything has already been decided. It is a safeguard for Indigenous self-determination.

Learn More: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1HkHyJoCG2/?mibextid=wwXIfr

THE SEQUENCE MATTERS

Free, Prior and Informed Consent means consent must come before the decision.

You cannot make the fundamental decisions about a project, program, policy or activity, begin implementing it, and then approach communities afterwards and call that FPIC. That is consultation after the fact. And consultation is not the same thing as consent.

Similarly, you cannot decide that mining concessions should be issued within or affecting Indigenous lands, conduct lotteries, issue concessions and allow activities to commence, and then approach Indigenous communities — as an agency or a miner — afterwards asking whether they consent to mining or entry to mine. By then, a critical decision has already been made. The consent was supposed to come before the decision to permit the activity, not after it.

This is why we have always found the criticism that organizations such as APA are simply “talking about consultation, consultation, consultation” to be somewhat simplistic. APA was attempting to apply FPIC as it is understood as an international standard, rather than treating it as another box to tick after a decision has already been taken.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WITH THE CARBON CREDITS

This is not an abstract dispute. The documented timeline of Guyana’s ART TREES carbon credit program is, in fact, a textbook case of what FPIC is meant to prevent.

According to the Forest Peoples Program’s case study on the certification — first published on apaguyana.com and drawing directly on APA’s own account — the Government of Guyana submitted its proposal for carbon credit certification to the ART Secretariat in December 2020, before any prior consultation with Indigenous Peoples took place.

The proposal covered carbon credits generated from all forests nationally, including forests on Indigenous Peoples’ titled lands. Government did hold information-sharing sessions on the broader Low Carbon Development Strategy, of which the ART proposal was one component — but per APA and FPP’s account, these sessions did not amount to consultation in the sense required under international human rights law, and no Indigenous Peoples were asked for, or gave, their free, prior and informed consent to the proposal itself.

The National Toshaos Council did endorse the wider LCDS policy framework. But the NTC is not a body empowered to give FPIC on behalf of individual Indigenous communities for a scheme monetising carbon on their specific titled lands — a distinction government has repeatedly treated as immaterial, and one that goes to the heart of what “consent” is supposed to mean under FPIC. Consent is community-specific and land-specific.

A national council endorsing a national strategy is not the same thing as the villages whose titled forests are being sold into a carbon market agreeing to that sale.

Aster Global Environmental Services then conducted the validation and verification for ART’s certification — but its review, per FPP, was structurally limited to assessing government’s own self-reported compliance with the TREES standard, not an independent assessment of whether Indigenous communities had actually consented. ART certified the credits in December 2022. A portion was sold to Hess Corporation.

Only after all of that — the proposal, the endorsement, the validation, the certification, the sale — did APA’s formal complaint arrive, filed with ART’s grievance mechanism in March 2023. And even then, the complaint was dismissed twice: first in May 2023, then again on appeal in October 2023, both times without the Secretariat ever substantively engaging the FPIC question APA had raised. Government’s own framing of that outcome was that APA had failed on procedural grounds — questions about who APA represented, whether APA itself had consent to file.

Whatever the merits of that procedural dismissal, one fact remains: to this day, no independent body has actually adjudicated whether Guyana’s process met the FPIC standard. The complaint was dismissed on threshold grounds, not defeated on the merits.

 

That is the sequence problem in its purest form. The credits were designed, proposed, endorsed by a body without the authority to consent, validated against government’s own self-reporting, certified, and sold — and only at the very end of that chain was an Indigenous rights organization’s objection even heard, and then dismissed without reaching the substance.

592 Guardian understanding of APA’s position, then and now, was never that Indigenous communities should not receive the benefits of carbon financing. It was that the conditions for consent were never met before the money moved. That is a fundamentally different argument. It is the difference between saying: “Do not give Indigenous communities this funding,” and saying: “Before decisions are made about Indigenous lands and resources, Indigenous communities must have the opportunity to determine whether and how they consent to those decisions.” Those are not the same thing.

CHINESE LANDING

This brings us to mining, and to the standoff currently unfolding at Chinese Landing.

The question there cannot simply be whether the community was eventually consulted before a miner entered their lands with heavy equipment. We have to ask when they were consulted about the decision to mine from the inception, what information they had, what decision had already been made, and whether they actually had the ability to influence or withhold consent before that decision was taken.

The record at Chinese Landing shows exactly this pattern. A 1999 agreement gave the miner permission to work in exchange for tribute, employment and services — but by 2009 the Village Council had refused to renew that agreement and told the miner to cease work and remove his equipment. What followed was over a decade of legal proceedings that never actually resolved whether the village’s consent was required at all: a 2017 CCJ ruling that was narrowly procedural — it struck down a cease-work order on jurisdictional grounds and expressly left undecided whether the Village Council had standing to enforce consent requirements — followed by a 2021 High Court ruling, still on appeal, holding that minerals vest in the state and that the miner did not need village permission to access his permits in the first place.

That 2021 ruling is the sharper and more uncomfortable version of the argument this publication is  making here. It is not merely that consent was sought too late in that case. A court has held, as the law currently stands, that consent was never legally required at all — that the Mining Act’s vesting of minerals in the state overrides the Amerindian Act’s consent provisions. Notably, that reading contradicts an earlier ruling by the very same judge in a different case, where prospecting permits granted before the Amerindian Act’s commencement were held to require consent on renewal — a contradiction that has never been explained and remains unresolved on appeal.

If concessions have already been issued — which is often the case — the process has already moved considerably beyond the point at which consent should have been sought. And if our courts are, in live cases, reading our own laws as not requiring that consent in the first place, then the problem is not simply implementation. It is the law itself.

THE UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION

Our existing laws may not fully reflect the FPIC standard. And perhaps that is precisely the uncomfortable conversation we need to have.

If our legal framework allows decisions affecting Indigenous lands to be made first and consent to be sought later — or, as the Chinese Landing litigation suggests, allows those decisions to be made without requiring consent at all — then perhaps the problem is not with the principle of FPIC. Perhaps the problem is that our laws need to catch up with the rights they are supposed to protect.

This is why this publication do not see FPIC as an obstacle to development, nor do we blame the APA for the positions it has held on either carbon financing or mining. What we do find a reasonable and open question is how to practically apply FPIC without jeopardizing Indigenous peoples’ rights in the process — and we believe the NTC and District Councils are trying to address exactly this through the development of FPIC guidelines and protocols.

Good intentions do not remove the requirement for consent. A project can be designed to bring jobs. A program can be designed to bring development. A policy can be designed with the best intentions. But good intentions do not automatically create consent.

FPIC exists precisely because even well-intentioned decisions can undermine Indigenous self-determination when Indigenous peoples are excluded from making those decisions.

SOURCES

Forest Peoples Programme, “ART’s Controversial Certification of Carbon Credits to the Government of Guyana” (29 Feb 2024, first published apaguyana.com); Kaieteur News reporting on APA’s March 2023 ART complaint and government response; Guyana Chronicle, “They do not speak for us” (15 Apr 2023); Vieira v. Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, [2017] CCJ 20 (A.J.); reporting on the 2021 High Court ruling and pending Court of Appeal proceedings; IACHR Precautionary Measures No. 196-23.

— The Board

592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊INTEGRITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

The Border Is Not a Constitutional Vacuum nor Federal Fiefdom

---

OP-ED BY: Hem Kumar–August 2026

At America’s Borders, CBP Has Claimed the Power to Make Rights Disappear

“It’s not indefinite,” the Customs and Border Protection officer said after an American citizen, held for hours at an airport, asked how long the government intended to keep him. “We’ll let you know.”

That is not an answer. It is a declaration of power.

It is the sound of a federal agency informing a citizen that time, information, counsel, explanation, and even the basic dignity of knowing why he has been seized by the state are now privileges to be dispensed with—or withheld—at the government’s pleasure.

Customs and Border Protection calls this “secondary inspection.” It calls the process “administrative.” It says lawyers are not permitted during secondary examinations because an international-arrivals inspection is not a criminal proceeding.

But the label is a legal convenience, not a moral defense.

If a person is ordered into a controlled area, separated from family, unable to leave, denied access to a telephone, interrogated about private associations and work, and given no explanation of the accusation or timeline for release, he is experiencing state coercion. Calling that coercion “administrative” does not make it less coercive. It merely reveals how easily government lawyers can use technical language to conceal a profoundly unequal exercise of power.

The reporter at the center of this account was an American citizen returning home with his wife. His passport was taken, locked in a container, and he was directed to secondary screening. His wife was admitted. He was held for approximately four hours. He asked to call a lawyer. He was refused. He was not told why he had been detained. And when he was finally cleared to enter his own country, the officer who processed him reportedly did not know why he had been held either.

Think about that.

The government confined a citizen without telling him why. The government denied him official means to speak with counsel. And the government employee who finally released him could offer no explanation because, apparently, the decision may have been made somewhere else—in a database, a hidden list, an automated targeting system, or an opaque bureaucratic chain that no individual officer could or would explain.

This is not accountable law enforcement. It is algorithmic bureaucracy armed with badges, detention rooms, and the presumption that the public has no right to ask questions.

CBP has substantial authority at the border. Nobody serious disputes that the government can inspect baggage, enforce customs law, identify fraud, intercept contraband, and investigate real threats. The issue is not whether a border exists. The issue is whether the Constitution, democratic accountability, and basic human decency cease to exist at that border.

For CBP, the answer increasingly appears to be yes.

A citizen’s right to return to the United States is fundamental. The government may demand proof of citizenship and may carry out lawful border inspections. But it cannot turn the right to come home into a conditional favor, dependent upon whether a traveler submits quietly to limitless uncertainty, invasive questioning, data extraction, and unexplained suspicion.

The danger is especially acute in the age of hidden databases and automated risk scoring. DHS acknowledges that it maintains extensive systems containing traveler data, including the Automated Targeting System and Secure Flight-related screening records. Yet Americans have no practical way to know whether they have been flagged, why they have been flagged, which agency entered the information, whether the data are wrong, or how to correct it before the next humiliating encounter at an airport.

That is the architecture of unaccountable power: the government knows, the citizen does not; the government records, the citizen cannot inspect; the government accuses by implication, the citizen is denied a meaningful chance to respond.

And those most vulnerable to this system are often those least able to fight it.

The American citizen delayed for four hours ultimately entered his country. A lawful permanent resident may instead be pressured to surrender a green card. A visitor may be placed on the next flight out. An asylum seeker may face a life-altering decision in a sterile interview room, far from a lawyer, family member, or any realistic opportunity to understand the consequences of what an officer places before them.

The account of an older Jordanian woman reportedly being pressured to sign away her permanent-resident status while her husband struggled to reach counsel illustrates the human cost. A decision that may separate families and alter the course of a life should never be treated as airport paperwork to be signed under distress, isolation, and official intimidation.

Nor should journalists, lawyers, advocates, academics, or diaspora communities be expected to accept special scrutiny because of their work, religion, ethnicity, travel history, foreign relationships, or political associations. Questions about journalism and media work may be presented as casual curiosity. But when those questions come from an armed federal authority holding a traveler incommunicado, “curiosity” carries the force of compulsion.

The First Amendment does not become a decorative suggestion at the arrivals gate.

CBP’s position is effectively this: the agency can compel waiting, demand answers, deny clarity, restrict access to counsel, and invoke sealed systems and undisclosed intelligence rationales—all while dismissing the matter as merely administrative. That proposition should alarm every American who believes government power must be explainable before it is excusable.

The response cannot be limited to sympathy after the fact. Congress must impose enforceable safeguards.

CBP should be required to provide travelers with a written record of their referral to secondary inspection, including the start and end time, the responsible office, and a meaningful explanation when disclosure would not compromise a legitimate investigation. Travelers should have prompt access to a telephone, family contact, medication, restroom facilities, disability accommodations, and legal advice. No lawful permanent resident should be pressured to abandon status without a genuine opportunity to consult counsel and understand the consequences.

DHS must also disclose how frequently U.S. citizens are sent to secondary inspection, how long they are held, how many are subjected to device searches, and how automated systems, watch lists, and database matches influence those decisions. An independent watchdog—not CBP itself—must audit the agency’s systems for error, bias, political retaliation, and unconstitutional targeting.

Finally, citizens must have a clear, rapid, and enforceable process to learn whether they have been placed on a government list, challenge false information, and obtain correction. A Freedom of Information Act request is important, but it is not enough. FOIA is slow, heavily redacted, and too often defeated by the very secrecy that enables abuse. Rights that can be exercised only after months or years of bureaucratic delay are rights already diminished.

The airport border is not a constitutional vacuum. It is not a federal fiefdom. It is not a place where the government may reduce citizens to data points, suspected names, travel patterns, and silent entries in a database.

 

A democracy is tested not by how it treats the powerful, well-connected, or politically favored. It is tested by whether an ordinary person can ask, “Why am I being held?” and receive an answer; whether he can call someone for help; whether he can challenge a government error before it becomes a punishment.

“We’ll let you know” is not due process. It is the language of unaccountable power

 

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

A MINISTER WHO SHOULD HAVE LEARNED TO ZIP IT.

---

Edghill’s Canawaima Claim Is Not a Jurisdictional Dispute. It Is the Same Pattern That Failed Barima’s Victims.

OPINION BY :— Staff Writer ♦ August 2026

NOT A CONTRADICTION. A PATTERN.

When the MV Canawaima was pulled from service for the second time in ten days on 22 August, Public Works Minister Bishop Juan Edghill offered the public an explanation: two technical inspections by Guyanese and Surinamese experts had concluded, in writing, that the vessel could safely remain in operation until dry-docking within three months. The Maritime Authority Suriname (MAS), he said, had simply insisted on fixing immediately what could have waited. It read, on its face, like an ordinary dispute between two regulators over timing.

We do not think that is the right way to read it, and we do not think the public should either. This is not a contradiction. It is a pattern — the same pattern this news media  has already documented in exhaustive detail on the M.V. Barima, playing out again on a different vessel, in front of the same minister, who by now had every reason to have learned restraint.

THE BARIMA PRECEDENT, IN THE MINISTER’S OWN WORDS

On 19 July, less than 24 hours after the Barima capsized with dozens still missing, Edghill told grieving families at the Umana Yana that the vessel “was not overloaded by passengers or by cargo” and that there was “no engine problem or any mechanical problem.” On 20 July, at a formal press briefing, he went further: “There was no report of any kind that suggested the vessel was unseaworthy. It was in line for dry docking in keeping with the schedule.”

Those were not hedged, provisional remarks. They were confident, specific, technical assertions, delivered to a public in shock, by a minister with no maritime engineering background, about a vessel whose wreck had not yet been examined by anyone. On 13 August, Kaieteur News published a paper trail of internal maintenance logs, stamped requisitions, and urgent technical reports — the same defect record this news outlet  has independently corroborated — spanning nearly a year before the disaster, including repeated “urgent” flags on generator, heat-exchanger, and exhaust failures. The minister’s 20 July claim did not survive that record. It was not a matter of interpretation. It was simply false, and it took weeks and an outside document trail to establish that.

A minister who was wrong about Barima’s seaworthiness in July had no standing to be confident about Canawaima’s in August.

 

SAME MINISTER, SAME VOICE, SAME VESSEL TYPE

Now compare that to Edghill’s Canawaima statement. He again spoke with certainty about a technical seaworthiness determination — “the experts concluded the vessel can remain in operation” — on a matter that was, by his own account, contested by the actual regulator with jurisdiction over the vessel’s maintenance. And once again, a document surfaced almost immediately that complicated the minister’s reassurance: Marine Consulting and Surveyor Waldo Liauw Kwie Fong’s own 21 August report — the report Edghill’s statement appears to rest on — found the Canawaima’s hull in “poor” condition with heavy corrosion, stated plainly that the 30-year-old vessel’s “economic and service life has expired,” and listed the vessel as lacking a valid safety construction certificate, tonnage certificate, registry certificate, and load line certificate, with the Surinamese crew missing STCW certification and the vessel missing its ISM certificate despite running an international route. The same document Edghill cites for reassurance is, on a plain reading, a document that catalogues serious non-compliance.

We want to be precise about what we are and are not saying. We are not saying Edghill fabricated anything, and we are not saying the surveyor’s three-month operability window was wrong on its own terms — that is a technical judgment for qualified surveyors, not for this publication  or for a Minister of Public Works. What we are saying is narrower and, we think, harder to dispute: a minister who has already been publicly and documentarily proven wrong once this year about a vessel’s seaworthiness has no business speaking with the same unqualified confidence a second time, about a second vessel, while the government’s own cited document lists exactly the kind of certification gaps that turned out to matter on the Barima.

THE DISCIPLINE A MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRES

A Minister of Public Works is not expected to be a marine surveyor. No one demands that of him. What is reasonably demanded — of any minister, in any government, anywhere — is the discipline to say “I am relaying what the surveyor’s report states” rather than personally vouching for a technical conclusion in his own voice, particularly on a subject where he has already gotten it wrong once, publicly, with fatal consequences attached.

That distinction is not pedantic. It is the entire difference between a minister who communicates and a minister who improvises, and it is precisely the discipline Edghill has now failed to exercise twice in five weeks.

This matters beyond Edghill’s own standing, though that standing is fair game — the call for his removal from office has stood, unresolved, since the week of the Barima disaster, and this publication  does not consider it settled. It matters because every time the minister overspeaks and is later proven wrong, the credibility cost is not paid by him personally. It is paid by the next set of passengers who are told a vessel is fine, and by the CoI, the audit team, and every other accountability mechanism this government has stood up since 18 July — each one a little less trusted, because the minister whose ministry oversees all of them keeps needing correction by outside document trails rather than by his own candor.

THE PATTERN, SET OUT PLAINLY

19 Jul 2026  Edghill: Barima “was not overloaded… no engine problem or any mechanical problem.”

20 Jul 2026  Edghill: “There was no report of any kind that suggested the vessel was unseaworthy.”

13 Aug 2026  Kaieteur News publishes a documented paper trail of nearly a year of urgent, unresolved defect reports on the Barima, directly contradicting the 20 July claim.

21 Aug 2026  The surveyor’s report underlying Edghill’s reassurance documents hull corrosion, an expired service life, and multiple missing statutory certificates.

22 Aug 2026  Canawaima suspended again; Edghill states Guyanese/Surinamese experts concluded the vessel can safely operate for three more months pending dry-docking — the same report cited above.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR

1. That Minister Edghill cease personally characterizing technical seaworthiness findings in his own voice, and instead publish the underlying surveyor and inspection reports in full, in real time, so the public can read the primary document rather than the minister’s summary of it.
2. That the Ministry of Public Works issue a public accounting of every instance since 18 July in which a ministerial statement on vessel condition was later contradicted by a primary document, so the pattern can be assessed on the full record rather than piecemeal.
3. That the standing calls for Edghill’s resignation or removal — unresolved since late July — be answered by government on the merits, rather than left to lapse through the passage of time and the arrival of the next news cycle.

Suriname’s regulator did its job on the Canawaima. Whether Guyana’s minister did his is now, for the second time this year, a fair and documented question — and this time, the public should not have to wait for another paper trail to surface before getting the answer.

— The Board

The 592 Guardian