A BRIDGE TOO CONVENIENT

/0 Comments/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUTABILITY JOURNALISM.JULY 2026

A Bridge Too Convenient: What Suriname’s Unilateral Turn Says About Who Was Never Really in the Room

The 592 Guardian — Editorial.

On Monday night, in a Paramaribo budget debate most Guyanese never heard about until it was already history, Suriname’s Public Works Minister Stephen Tsang told his National Assembly that his government would finance the Corentyne River Bridge “100 per cent” on its own, that tolls were on the table, and that a new tender was “likely.”            On Tuesday, President Irfaan Ali told this reporter’s counterparts at Demerara Waves that he did not know who Tsang was, and that President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons had personally assured him — as recently as their last exchange — that Suriname was still “finalising their end of the arrangement.” Guyana, he insisted, was ready with its commitment. There was, he said, “only one thing we’re interested in and that is the joint development of the bridge.”

Two governments. One project. Two entirely different stories, told forty-eight hours apart, with a head of state professing ignorance of the named minister to a Guyanese newsroom rather than to his own Assembly.

 That gap deserves scrutiny on its own terms, before any theory of motive gets attached to it. Whatever Suriname’s calculus turns out to be, the sequence of events itself — nearly four years of joint procurement machinery, a named preferred contractor, repeated joint statements as recently as September 2025, and now a unilateral reversal aired first to Surinamese legislators — is the story. Everything that follows is an assessment of plausible scenarios, not a verdict.

What Is Actually Established

Strip away the diplomatic language and the record is precise. The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board opened bids in August 2023 from five pre-qualified contractors or joint ventures, all but one Chinese state-owned or state-linked. China Road & Bridge Corporation bid US$236,173,962, against Ballast Nedam Infra Suriname’s US$325.4 million.

By December 2024, Minister Juan Edghill was confirming CRBC as the jointly evaluated preferred contractor — selected by both the Guyanese and Surinamese evaluation teams, though without a signed construction contract, pending resolution of financing.

The financing question was never resolved because it could not be. Suriname’s IMF structural adjustment programme constrained its borrowing capacity, and by January 2024 both qualifying bidders had indicated they could not meet the pre-financing terms under the original Public-Private Partnership model, forcing both governments to pursue direct financing instead — including a joint approach to Beijing. That approach appears to have stalled indefinitely: Suriname had separately restructured $476 million in debt with China’s Exim Bank in November 2024, with $140 million already in arrears, a detail that should have been sitting on every desk in Georgetown as a warning sign about Suriname’s actual appetite for taking on new Chinese-linked debt for a “joint” bridge.

Through 2025, the diplomatic choreography continued undisturbed. Presidents Ali and Geerlings-Simons met in Nieuw Nickerie in September 2025 and reaffirmed their commitment to “continue close coordination to address outstanding legal, technical and financial matters,” with the bridge framed as integral to Amazonian regional interconnectivity. As recently as October 2025, Vice President Jagdeo was telling reporters the project would move at the pace at which we can reach an agreement on funding,”explicitly distinguishing it from unilateral Guyanese projects like the Berbice Bridge precisely because it was a shared undertaking requiring Suriname to raise its share.”

Then, in April 2026 — three months before Tsang’s announcement — the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on Government to halt discussions on the bridge altogether, citing Suriname’s “unilateral imposition of exorbitant fees for the use of shared waterways and accusing Paramaribo of enforcing measures that undermine Berbice’s development even as Guyana continued negotiating in good faith”. That is a material fact this editorial board has not seen adequately connected to Tuesday’s announcement in any Guyanese coverage so far: the private sector was already flagging bad faith on Suriname’s side months before Tsang stood up in the National Assembly.

Guyanese private sector bodies are warning that repeated controversy over Guyana’s border with Suriname is beginning to erode confidence in cross-border energy cooperation, after a map shown at the Suriname Energy, Oil and Gas Summit (SEOGS) 2026 depicted the New River Triangle as Surinamese territory.

 Scenario One: Fiscal Pragmatism, Badly Communicated

The least sinister reading is also the most mundane, and it should not be dismissed simply because it is boring. Suriname is servicing IMF-conditioned debt. A jointly financed, jointly tolled bridge under a DBFOM structure with a Chinese state contractor carries exactly the debt-trap profile that regional analysts have already flagged — the Hambantota Port precedent is not an abstraction to anyone advising Paramaribo on this financing structure If Surinamese technocrats concluded that a wholly Surinamese-financed, tolled asset is more bankable and less politically exposed than a bilateral arrangement requiring Guyanese sign-off on every design and tariff decision, that is a coherent, defensible policy shift. Under this reading, Tsang’s error was not the decision — it was springing it on Guyana’s president via a parliamentary answer rather than through the joint commission structure both sides had spent a year rebuilding.

This scenario does not require corruption. It requires only that Guyana’s government failed to notice, or failed to prepare for, a financing reality that the GCCI was publicly warning about in April.

Scenario Two: A Contractor Pipeline Already Compromised

This is the scenario the 592 Guardian’s initial read raises, and it merits being stated precisely rather than insinuated. If Suriname builds the bridge unilaterally and re-tenders, the previously “jointly evaluated” preferred contractor — CRBC — loses its automatic claim to the project. A new, Suriname-only tender means new evaluation criteria, a new procurement authority of record, and no obligation to honour a bilateral evaluation process Georgetown can no longer supervise or audit.

What would need to be true for this to be more than a hypothesis: evidence that specific Guyanese or
Surinamese officials had already extracted, been promised, or negotiated undisclosed benefits contingent on CRBC’s selection under the joint framework — and that a re-tender threatens to expose or unwind those arrangements.

 This publication has not seen such evidence, and none has been published by any outlet covering this story as of writing. The Diálogo Américas analysis on CRBC’s track record documented irregularities including labor rights violations and shoddy work across other jurisdictions where the company has operated — establishes that CRBC carries a global pattern warranting scrutiny. It does not establish anything about the Guyana-Suriname procurement specifically. Readers should hold this distinction firmly: a contractor’s bad track record elsewhere is grounds for demanding transparency here, not grounds for assuming skullduggery has already occurred.

If this writer’s instinct is right, the tell will not be in Tsang’s announcement — it will be in whichever entity Suriname’s new tendering procedure ultimately selects, and how quickly. A re-tender that lands, within months, on a contractor with any traceable relationship to the original bid pool, evaluation personnel, or financing intermediaries would be the concrete fact pattern worth an investigative follow-up. Absent that, this remains a scenario, not a finding.

Scenario Three: Suriname Monetizes What Guyana Was Prepared to Subsidize

The toll question is the detail that should worry Georgetown most regardless of which other scenario is true. A wholly Suriname-financed, Suriname-owned, Suriname-tolled bridge converts an asset both governments spent four years describing as mutual infrastructure into a Surinamese revenue instrument that Guyanese commercial traffic, fishermen, and cross-border trade will simply have to pay to use. Guyana’s 2025 budget had already earmarked GY$5 billion (US$23.9 million) toward its 50% share under the joint model. If that joint model is now dead, the operative question is not just who builds the bridge — it is whether Georgetown negotiated, or even attempted to negotiate, toll-rate protections, dispute mechanisms, or usage guarantees for Guyanese users before Suriname’s unilateral turn hardened into policy. Nothing in the public record indicates Guyana raised this possibility as a contingency at any point over the past four years. That is itself an accountability gap, independent of Suriname’s motives.

The Question This Editorial Board Is Actually Asking

Not “why did Suriname do this” — Paramaribo owes its own public an answer to that, and Minister Tsang has at least attempted to give one, however undiplomatically delivered. The question for Guyanese readers is narrower and squarely within this publication’s remit: why was President Ali “unaware”?

Four years of joint procurement architecture, a jointly named preferred contractor, and a September 2025 joint statement reaffirming “close coordination” do not evaporate without warning unless one side stopped communicating substantively months before the public announcement — which the GCCI’s April intervention suggests was already visible to Guyana’s private sector. Either Guyana’s diplomatic and technical teams were not picking up on deteriorating signals that industry stakeholders were seeing in real time, or they were picking them up and the public — including this newsroom — was not told. Both possibilities are failures of stewardship over a US$236 million binational asset and Guyana’s committed GY$5 billion stake in it. Neither requires Suriname to have acted in bad faith for Guyana’s own accountability question to stand.

President Ali’s posture — professing ignorance to a private newsroom rather than convening a public accounting of what Georgetown knew and when — is itself the story this editorial board will continue to pursue.         

If favoured contractors, financing intermediaries, or officials on either side of the Corentyne stood to gain from the joint framework’s collapse into a unilateral Surinamese tender, that will only surface through what happens next: who bids, who wins, and how fast. This publication will be watching the next tender notice as closely as we watched the last one.

The 592 Guardian’s editorial board applies its standing methodology to this matter: aspirations and announcements are treated as unverified until independently confirmed; verified findings are distinguished explicitly from unproven allegations; and institutional actors are named directly. Readers with knowledge of the original NPTAB evaluation process, financing negotiations, or any aspect of Suriname’s anticipated re-tender are invited to contact the editorial desk.

Trinidad’s Golden Silence : Fails Venezuela in it hour of Need .

/0 Comments/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦TRANSPARENT OBJECTIVITY JOURNALISM

Trinidad’s Golden Silence: Fails Venezuela in its hour of need

When two powerful earthquakes tore through Venezuela on 24 June 2026, toppling buildings, crushing lives, and forcing rescue teams into a race against time, the Caribbean was handed a test of basic regional humanity. Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela’s nearest neighbour, should have answered that test with speed, visible solidarity, and concrete action. Instead, its public posture amounted to sympathy wrapped in caution: an offer of support “if requested,” rather than an unmistakable move to place assistance in motion.

That distinction matters. In earthquake disasters, the first hours are everything. Survivors buried beneath rubble do not benefit from diplomatic caution or polished statements. They need urban search-and-rescue teams, medical support, emergency shelter, and logistics that can be mobilised while there is still a chance to pull people out alive. International reporting showed that other countries responded with urgency: Mexico moved to deploy specialized rescue teams, while the United States, Qatar, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic signalled assistance quickly. Against that backdrop, Trinidad and Tobago’s response looked not merely restrained, but conspicuously slow.

The government’s defenders may point to procedure. They will say sovereignty matters, that assistance should be coordinated carefully, and that no state should impose itself on another in the middle of a calamity. That argument is not frivolous. But it is also incomplete. There is a wide gap between reckless intervention and decisive regional leadership. A government can make an immediate, public, and practical offer of help without violating diplomatic norms. It can pre-position assets, dispatch medical supplies, open lines to emergency coordinators, and make clear that the closest neighbour is ready to act the moment clearance is given. What it should not do is hide behind language so conditional that it sounds like a neighbour waiting at the gate while the house burns.

This is where geography becomes moral pressure. Trinidad and Tobago is not a distant observer reacting from another hemisphere. It sits just across a narrow stretch of sea from Venezuela.                                                                                             That proximity is not a matter of symbolism; it is a measure of responsibility. The nearer state should be among the first to respond, not among the last to settle on a cautious formulation. When a region is struck by disaster, proximity ought to translate into readiness, not hesitation. Yet that is exactly the impression Port of Spain has left.

The scale of the Venezuelan tragedy only sharpens the criticism. Reports from the United Nations and major international outlets described a grave and worsening situation, with deaths, injuries, and widespread destruction rising rapidly in the aftermath.

ReliefWeb’s situation reporting underscored the urgency of coordination, rescue, and humanitarian response in the immediate days after the quakes. That is why public solidarity alone is not enough. Sympathy does not cut through reinforced concrete. Readiness does not free the trapped. Only action does.

There is also a political context that cannot be ignored. Relations between Port of Spain and Caracas have long been strained, and that tension may well have shaped the government’s careful language. But if political friction is what explains the delay, then the explanation is not a defense; it is the indictment. Human beings buried under collapsed buildings should never become collateral in diplomatic discomfort. In a moment like this, the question is not whether relations are difficult. It is whether leadership can rise above them.

That is why this episode demands scrutiny, not excuses.
What exactly did the government do in the first hours after the earthquakes?
Was there a direct call to Venezuelan authorities?
Were rescue assets identified and readied?
Did the Coast Guard, Defence Force, or emergency management agencies receive instructions to prepare for deployment or logistics support? Were supplies placed on standby? Were CARICOM or bilateral channels used to accelerate consent and coordination?
These are not hostile questions. They are the minimum questions a serious public deserves answered.

If Trinidad and Tobago lacked the capacity to deploy search-and-rescue teams, then say so plainly and explain why. If its hands were tied by diplomatic protocol, then show what was done to overcome that obstacle. If the government chose caution because of political calculations, then the public should know that too. In a crisis of this scale, transparency is not optional. It is part of accountability.

The strongest case for regional solidarity is not sentimental. It is practical. Today’s disaster zone can be tomorrow’s rescue corridor. “Today for me, tomorrow for you” is not merely a slogan; it is a principle of Caribbean survival. Small states know, better than most, that when catastrophe comes, help cannot always wait on perfect paperwork. It must move with urgency, competence, and courage.

Trinidad and Tobago had an to show that it understood that truth. So far, it has chosen caution over force, language over logistics, and procedural comfort over visible neighbourly duty.
That may satisfy bureaucrats. It will not satisfy the families still waiting in the rubble, or the region that expects more from a government positioned so close to the suffering. History will remember not the sentiment of the statement, but the speed of the response.

The 592 GUARDIAN offer these few questions for the relevant authorities :

⇒What specific actions did the government take in the first 24 hours after the earthquakes struck Venezuela?
⇒Did Trinidad and Tobago offer any deployable rescue or medical assets immediately, or only a general expression of readiness?
⇒Was direct contact made with Venezuelan authorities, and at what time?
– ⇒Did the Coast Guard, Defence Force, or national emergency agencies receive instructions to prepare for deployment?
⇒Were humanitarian supplies, medical kits, or emergency shelters pre-positioned for rapid transfer?
⇒Was the government waiting for a formal request from Venezuela before acting, and if so, why?
⇒Did CARICOM or any bilateral channel help facilitate faster coordination?
⇒What prevented Trinidad and Tobago from publicly announcing immediate, practical assistance?
⇒Was the response shaped by current political tensions with Caracas?
⇒Does the government have a standing protocol for rapid assistance to neighbouring states struck by disasters, and was it activated?                                                                                                      Until these questions are adequately addressed ,the public can draw their own conclusions .                                                      THE 592 GUARDIAN maintains its objectivity, in addressing issues in the public’s interest  

RESPONSE TO THE “INQUISITIVE OBSERVER”

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN | EDITORIAL RESPONSE

The Inquisitive Observer’s Gulf Analogy Cannot Survive Contact With Guyanese Facts

A response to “The Inquisitive Observer,” published in Guyana Chronicle

The column in question is theoretically coherent and factually bankrupt. Its author correctly identifies that oil-rich states must convert hydrocarbon revenues into durable human capital — the UAE and Qatar offer genuine instructive precedents on that point. The argument collapses, however, the moment it arrives in Guyana, because the writer has chosen as his Exhibit A a programme that is itself a study in procurement failure, institutional opacity, and unresolved accountability.

GOAL is not a model. GOAL is a warning.

In early 2025, Staffordshire University publicly denied any affiliation with courses being offered under the GOAL initiative through a third-party intermediary, the International School Development Consortium (ISDC). Hundreds of Guyanese students had enrolled under the impression that they were earning internationally recognised degrees, only to discover that Staffordshire University had never authorised those courses.

Students registered for Maritime Affairs found themselves assigned Business and Finance modules. Those pursuing psychology and engineering encountered equivalent programme mismatches. These are not administrative anomalies. These are systemic failures of due diligence at the ministerial level.
The government’s response was not accountability — it was deflection. Vice President Jagdeo attributed the crisis to a change in management at the university, dismissed characterisations of fraud, and assured the public that a resolution was being sought through a meeting in London.
Meanwhile, Finance Minister Ashni Singh redirected press inquiries about GOAL’s financial arrangements with ISDC to GOAL Director Professor Jacob Opadeyi — who initially promised the information by March 17, and then did not provide it. 
The financial dimension alone demands a forensic reckoning. In 2024, the Government injected $4 billion into GOAL — just $100 million more than the total allocation to the University of Guyana, Guyana’s only public tertiary institution.

The public is entitled to know how much of that $4 billion flowed to ISDC, what contractual oversight existed, and who bears liability for the breach.

To date, those questions remain unanswered.
Accountability analyst Christopher Ram called on the President to pause the programme, release the full ISDC contract, publish a detailed breakdown of all payments made, and subject GOAL to a forensic audit.

That call has not been acted upon.                                                    The writer’s Gulf comparison also exposes a structural contradiction he does not address. Qatar’s Education for a New Era initiative worked precisely because it was governed by a Supreme Education Council, an independent Education Institute, and an Evaluation Institute with a mandate to track outcomes against labour market needs. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 embeds education reform within a broader diversification architecture with measurable sectoral targets. The UAE’s early investments included direct grants to overseas students conditioned on return and service to national institutions. These were not scholarship disbursements laundered through unvetted intermediaries. They were governed ecosystems.

What does Guyana have in comparative terms? A programme operated outside normal procurement architecture, directed by an official who has a documented political relationship with the President — having supervised his doctoral dissertation, a thesis that has never been made public — and shielded from parliamentary scrutiny. GOAL has no published outcome data, no accreditation verification protocol, and no independent evaluation body. The writer praises the inputs while declining to examine the outputs.

Here, the Exxon question becomes decisive. ExxonMobil Guyana President Alistair Routledge recently announced the commissioning of a comprehensive industrial baseline study to assess Guyana’s labour capacity and future needs, stating explicitly that “it is becoming harder to find additional Guyanese workers, particularly those with the advanced skills and expertise required by a highly technical industry such as oil and gas.” This is not a peripheral data point. This is the principal employer in Guyana’s oil sector — the very sector that GOAL’s scholarships are ostensibly meant to serve — publicly declaring that the skilled labour deficit is widening, not closing. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued 13,713 work permits to foreign nationals in 2024, citing lack of local skills as the rationale. 

If GOAL were functioning as the writer claims — producing the engineers, ICT specialists, and technical professionals Guyana needs — Exxon would not be commissioning a skills gap study. The Ministry would not be importing nearly 14,000 foreign workers. The programme’s own graduation statistics would be visible in labour market outcomes. They are not.

The Inquisitive Observer’s instinct — that education is the indispensable instrument of resource nationalism — is correct in principle. The 592 Guardian has made that argument repeatedly. But honouring that principle demands that we apply it honestly. The Gulf states built enduring educational ecosystems on transparency, independent governance, and outcome accountability. Guyana has built a billion-dollar scholarship programme on opaque procurement, a politically connected director, a university partner that publicly disowned its association with the programme, and a government that silenced inquiry rather than invited it.

The graduates celebrating at GOAL’s recent ceremony are not the problem. They deserve recognition for their effort and better from their government. The problem is that a columnist has offered those graduates — and the Guyanese public — a flattering analogy in place of the accountability those graduates are owed.
Celebrating graduations while the ISDC liability question remains unresolved, while no forensic audit has been conducted, and while ExxonMobil is commissioning the skills gap survey the government’s own programme should have made unnecessary — this is not economic statecraft. It is state-managed amnesia.

The 592 Guardian calls, once again, for the immediate release of all GOAL-ISDC financial transactions, an independent forensic audit of the programme’s expenditures, a published accreditation verification report for every partner institution, and the tabling of all GOAL contractual arrangements before the National Assembly.

The oil will not wait. Neither will the facts.

The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet covering Guyanese governance, extractive industry, and public finance.

WHEN THE STATE BECOMES THE THREAT!

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 592 Guardian | Editorial , June 2026

 

When the State Becomes the Threat: The Killing of Altaf King

On the evening of June 25, 2026, a 16-year-old boy rode his motorcycle along the Princetown Access Road in Corentyne, Berbice. He had no weapon. He had committed no crime against any person. By the account of his own mother, he ran because he feared being caught riding without a licence — the kind of infraction that earns a ticket, not a death sentence.
Altaf King never made it home. He is dead. And the Guyana Police Force, through its Office of Professional Responsibility, is now investigating itself.

That alone should tell you everything you need to know about where this is headed.

What the Police Say

The GPF’s account is terse and clinical. Enquiries disclosed, they say, that King was riding motorcycle #CL 5607 when he attempted to evade a police patrol, lost control of the motorcycle, and collided with a utility pole. He sustained injuries and was pronounced dead on arrival at the No. 75 Regional Public Hospital. The OPR has commenced an immediate investigation. Appropriate action will be taken should criminal or disciplinary culpability be established.
Note what that statement does not say. It does not say the patrol vehicle maintained a safe following distance.

It does not say officers rendered immediate assistance after the crash. It does not say anyone on that patrol has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation. It says the institution will investigate itself and will act if it finds itself culpable.

 The Guyana Police Force has issued a statement so carefully constructed that it forecloses nothing and admits nothing — while the boy’s mother is still screaming at the memory of finding her only son lying motionless on a hospital bed, his foot broken, his neck broken, blood covering his head.

What the Witnesses Say

The eyewitness account diverges from the police version at the single most consequential point: contact.
Scores of residents who converged on the scene allege that the pursuing patrol vehicle struck King’s motorcycle, sending him into the utility pole. They say officers then stepped out of the vehicle, looked at the boy bleeding on the road, and drove away to the station. They returned later in a second vehicle. And then, in the words of Padmini Megnauth — the mother who will spend the rest of her life trying to unsee what she saw at the No. 75 hospital — officers picked her son up and threw him into the van “like some dead dog.”

This is not rumour. This is sworn grief, spoken on the record, corroborated by multiple community witnesses, and consistent with video footage circulating on social media that shows King lying in a pool of blood while onlookers describe the manner in which officers eventually handled his body as callous and contemptuous.

The utility pole, multiple reports indicate, cracked in two. That is a physics question as much as an eyewitness question. The OPR’s investigators — if they are serious — need to answer it. Was the force consistent with a solo motorcycle losing control? Or with a vehicle impact?That is precisely the kind of forensic question that an internal investigation, with every structural incentive to produce a favourable conclusion, should not be trusted to answer alone.

The Proportionality Failure

Let us be precise about what preceded this chase, because it is the moral foundation of this entire editorial.
Altaf King was not suspected of robbery. He was not fleeing a crime scene. He was not armed. He was a 16-year-old boy — a former student of Skeldon Line Path Secondary School who had sat his CSEC examinations and was awaiting his results, a young mason learning a trade, his parents’ only child — riding a motorcycle without a licence.

A traffic infraction. An administrative matter. The kind of thing that, at most, should have resulted in a stop, a ticket, and a court date.

Instead, a police patrol vehicle engaged in a high-speed pursuit on a public road. The pursuit ended in the death of a child.
This is the proportionality failure that must anchor every demand for accountability that follows. The GPF did not pursue Altaf King because he posed a threat to the public. They pursued him because he tried to avoid them. And in their pursuit of a boy who posed no danger to anyone, they created the conditions — whether through direct contact or through reckless high-speed chase tactics — in which he died.

A bystander at the scene put it plainly: “The police them chase down a young school boy. Not like he’s a thief man that rob people or something. An innocent youth.”

That framing is not merely emotional. It is the correct legal and ethical frame. Lethal force — whether direct or consequential — requires proportionate justification. There is no proportionate justification for what happened on Princetown Access Road on June 25.

The Abandonment

It is not enough to examine the crash. We must examine what came after it.
If the witness accounts are accurate — and they are consistent, numerous, and corroborated by at least one opposition party whose representatives are on the ground with the family — officers at the scene of a critically injured teenager did not immediately render aid. They did not call for an ambulance. They left.
PNCR/APNU, in a formal statement, raised specific concern over allegations that King was left bleeding at the scene without receiving prompt assistance. That is not a fringe allegation. It is a documented concern raised by a constituted political party with representatives physically present in the community.

The GPF statement makes no mention of whether first aid was rendered. It makes no mention of response time. The silence is, in the prosecutorial tradition of this publication, evidence of what the institution does not want examined.

If it is established that officers struck this boy, saw him bleeding, and drove back to the station — that is not dereliction. That is abandonment. That is a level of contempt for human life that must be named as such.

The OPR Cannot Investigate This

Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond issued the required statement. She extended condolences. She assured the public of a thorough, impartial, and transparent investigation. She called for calm.

The 592 Guardian calls for something more substantive: an investigation structure that is actually capable of producing the truth.
The Office of Professional Responsibility is an internal police body. It answers to the GPF command structure. It has investigated complaints of police misconduct before. The public record of those investigations — their timelines, their findings, their accountability outcomes — does not inspire confidence.                                The family’s attorney, civil society, and the political opposition should be demanding immediately that this investigation be placed in independent hands.

At minimum, that

→Means civilian participation in the investigative panel.              →It means independent forensic examination of both the police patrol vehicle and the motorcycle, conducted by experts with no institutional relationship to the GPF.                                                →It means preservation — under seal, by court order if necessary — of all communications from Springlands Police Station on the evening of June 25: radio logs, vehicle dispatch records, duty rosters, and any body-worn camera or dashcam footage, if such equipment exists and was operational.
→It means, above all, that the ranks on that patrol must be identified, suspended with pay pending investigation, and interviewed under caution — not as colleagues conducting a collegial inquiry, but as potential subjects of a manslaughter or unlawful killing investigation.

A Note on Circulating Allegations

This publication is aware of reports circulating on social media alleging that two eyewitnesses to the incident were subsequently arrested and granted $20,000 bail each. As of the time of this editorial, The 592 Guardian has been unable to verify this allegation through any named source, legal representative, or corroborating local news report. We therefore cannot publish it as established fact.

We can, and do, publish the demand that the GPF publicly account for every arrest made in connection with events on and after June 25 in the Princetown/Corriverton area. If witnesses to a police killing are being detained, the public is entitled to know. If they are not, the record should be cleared.   Silence on this point is not neutrality — it is pressure.

The Pattern This Cannot Be Separated From

Guyana has been here before. The architecture of impunity that allows a patrol to chase a child to his death, leave him bleeding in the road, and then issue a terse institutional statement is not the product of one bad shift at the Springlands Police Station. It is the product of decades of inadequate civilian oversight, a culture of institutional self-protection, and a political class that has consistently treated police accountability as a threat to order rather than a prerequisite for it.
The PPP/C administration, now in its second consecutive term following the 2025 elections, governs a security apparatus that has operated without meaningful independent oversight.

The Police Complaints Authority — where it has functioned at all — has been chronically under-resourced and structurally toothless. The OPR was designed to manage optics, not produce accountability.
This is not the first young man killed during a police pursuit in this country. It will not be the last — unless the institutional conditions that make such killings possible, and their coverups likely, are dismantled and replaced with something worthy of a democratic state.

What Justice Requires
Padmini Megnauth is not asking for much. She is asking for the truth about how her only son died. She is asking that the people responsible be held accountable. She is asking that official assurances not be allowed to substitute for official action.
The 592 Guardian stands with that demand, and we will continue to cover this case until the investigation’s terms, conduct, and findings are fully public.

We make the following demands of the relevant authorities, clearly and without qualification:

→The ranks attached to the patrol vehicle involved must be identified publicly and suspended pending investigation. The patrol vehicle must be subjected to independent forensic examination. All station records from Springlands for the evening of June 25 must be preserved by court order.

→An independent civilian panel must be established to oversee — not merely observe — the investigation. The findings must be released in full, without redaction, within a legally binding timeframe.

→And to the Minister of Home Affairs, whose assurances of transparency are on the public record: you have made a promise. This publication will hold you to it. The community of Corriverton will hold you to it. The mother of Altaf King will hold you to it.

He was sixteen years old. He sat his CSEC exams. He was learning to lay bricks. He had no licence and no weapon and no record and no reason to die on that road.

The least this country owes him is the truth.

The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet covering Guyanese governance, politics, and extractive industry. Editorials represent the position of the publication.

The Venezuelan Network

/0 Comments/in , /by

EDITORIAL  |  JUNE ,2026

The Venezuelan Network at the Heart of One Guyana’s Flagship Project

While the PPP spent a year branding the opposition a Venezuelan security threat, it quietly handed Guyana’s most expensive infrastructure project to Venezuelan nationals, a former PDVSA operative, and a family bank the FBI raided for PDVSA money. That is not irony. That is a standard applied to enemies and abandoned for friends.

Let us begin with a bank almost no Guyanese has heard of.

Banco San Juan Internacional — BSJI — announced to the world, via a LinkedIn post, that it played an integral role in financing the US$759 million Gas-to-Energy plant at Wales, West Bank Demerara. It described itself as pivotal in supporting Lindsayca CH4 Guyana’s project for the Government of Guyana. It spoke of clean, affordable power for thousands of Guyanese.

Pleasant words. Incomplete picture.

BSJI is a Puerto Rico bank owned by a Venezuelan family. In February 2019, heavily armed FBI agents raided its San Juan offices, seizing documents in an operation tied to U.S. sanctions on Venezuela. Federal authorities suspected the bank of moving money for PDVSA — Venezuela’s state oil company, the same entity at the centre of the Maduro regime’s financial architecture. The then-U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton publicly described the raid as part of Washington’s campaign to cut off funds to Nicolás Maduro. The Department of Justice seized US$53 million.

A 2020 settlement returned most of it. BSJI paid a US$1 million penalty to close an investigation into the adequacy of its anti-money-laundering controls. That settlement did not close the file on the institution’s standing in the American financial system.

The New York Federal Reserve suspended BSJI’s access to the U.S. payment system in 2019, restored it in December 2020 after the settlement, then in 2022 found the bank had breached the conditions of its second chance — failing to file three mandatory assessments proving its compliance programme actually worked. The Fed concluded BSJI posed an undue risk and moved to shut it out permanently.

The bank sued. In October 2023, a federal district court refused to block the closure. In January 2025, the case was dismissed. On May 13, 2026 — last month — the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal unanimously, three judges to none. Writing for the court, Judge Denny Chin found that regional Reserve Banks hold what he described as a toolkit of scalpels and a hatchet to manage risk. The court also rejected the bank’s argument that it had been targeted because its owner was Venezuelan, finding no evidence for the claim.

By May 2023, BSJI had 14 account holders. Most of them, court filings reveal, were the owner’s close relatives and offshore entities they control.

This is not a bank in any recognisable commercial sense. It is a family vehicle in Puerto Rico — not federally insured, not under prudential federal supervision — that the FBI raided over Venezuelan oil money and the United States banking system expelled, twice, for compliance failures.

And it submitted a proposal to finance the largest public infrastructure project in Guyana’s history.

The proposal, a preliminary draft dated June 10, 2022 — six months before Guyana signed the construction contract — laid out a Multi-Project Credit Facility: US$252 million, described as up to 35 percent of project cost against an estimated investment of US$800 million. Ten-year term. Interest at 4.50 percent. A 1.50 percent fee. The collateral BSJI wanted was the project’s own output: the electricity and the gas liquids. The funds would sit in trust managed by the bank itself. BSJI also reserved the right to approve whoever won the contract to trade the plant’s natural gas liquids, to take the project’s carbon credits and assign them to third parties, and to require that all insurance covering construction, operating and political risk be acceptable to the bank — at Guyana’s expense.

To summarise: a small Puerto Rico bank owned by Venezuelans proposed to lend Guyana a quarter of a billion dollars, hold the nation’s project revenues in its own trust, control who sold the gas liquids, pocket the carbon credits, and insure itself against risk with Guyanese public funds.

The lender of record for the gas plant is the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which approved a US$527 million loan in late December 2024. The government has never explained BSJI’s role, and Finance Minister Ashni Singh did not return calls on the subject. But CH4’s own press material describes BSJI as its partner bank — the vehicle through which CH4 helps clients secure financing alongside EXIM and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation. The proposal landed on the desks of Ashni Singh and GTE Taskforce head Winston Brassington. The question is not whether BSJI is a footnote. The question is why a bank with this history was anywhere near Guyana’s treasury — and why the government has never said a single public word about it.

Because the bank is only the entry point. To see the full structure, you have to understand who actually built this plant.

The contract was awarded in December 2022 to a consortium styled as Lindsayca-CH4 Guyana. The government and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo sold it relentlessly as American excellence — U.S. engineering, a pillar of the Washington-Georgetown strategic partnership. EXIM gave it a Deal of the Year award. The American framing was the entire political point.

Peel the flag back, and you find Caracas.

Lindsayca, the Houston-based partner, is owned and run by two Venezuelan brothers, Hector and Jesus Fuentes Guimare. The project director at Wales, Ruben Figuera, was, by multiple accounts, a high-ranking official in the Maduro government overseeing PDVSA joint ventures before international authorities froze money in his Andorra accounts on bribery and money-laundering allegations.

CH4 Systems, the other half of the original consortium, is a Puerto Rico company wholly owned by Juan Bellosta. The Bellostas are the family that owns BSJI. Corporate records show CH4 Systems, BSJI and a procurement company called Commonwealth Procurement sharing the same Guaynabo address. Another entity, Venequip Puerto Rico, ties to the same family network.

When the bids came in during September 2022, Lindsayca-CH4 placed the highest of five. PowerChina offered the same integrated facility for US$704 million. China Machinery offered US$696 million. Guyana paid a premium of nearly US$200 million to keep China out — and what it got was a consortium owned by Venezuelans, directed by an alleged former PDVSA operative, and financed, adjacent, by a Venezuelan family bank the FBI had raided over PDVSA money.

The partnership has since fractured in ways the public was deliberately not allowed to see. The consortium took the Government of Guyana to a Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board. When that board ruled in January 2025, the government kept the outcome secret, citing confidentiality. Reports indicate Guyana was required to pay around US$106 million, negotiated down to roughly US$82 million, with approximately US$40 million going to CH4 to exit the deal. The Office of the Prime Minister denies any secret payment. But two facts are not in dispute: CH4 and the Bellosta family exited, Lindsayca took full control and rebranded as Lindsayca Guyana Inc., and the government chose to litigate the entire episode in darkness.

A government that trusted its own deal would not need the dark.

Now place all of this on the map as it stands in June 2026, and the embarrassment becomes something heavier and more dangerous.

Venezuela claims the Essequibo — two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass. Maduro held a referendum on annexing it in December 2023 and signed a law in April 2024 purporting to make it Venezuelan territory. The merits of Guyana’s case were argued at the International Court of Justice in The Hague from May 4 to 11 this year. A ruling is expected around August. Acting president Delcy Rodríguez has already declared Venezuela will ignore whatever the ICJ decides.

The gas plant at Wales sits in undisputed Guyana. The geography is not the point. The point is that this government has staked the nation’s energy future — and its national-security argument about independence from imported fuel — on critical infrastructure built and partly bankrolled by the very network the United States spent years dismantling. The PDVSA money that got BSJI raided. The PDVSA joint ventures Figuera is alleged to have run. The Venezuelan ownership running through Lindsayca and CH4. The family bank behind them.

While Caracas attempts to seize Guyana’s oil-bearing territory and the United States defends Guyana against it, Venezuelan oil-network figures poured the foundations of Guyana’s flagship power plant — with a loan from the American export bank. You do not have to allege a conspiracy to find that intolerable. You only have to ask the questions any serious government would ask.

EXIM finances American exports. It does not exist to protect Guyana from the people Guyana hires. That job belonged to this government.

Which brings us to the part that should anger Guyanese most — the part the government cannot attribute to Houston or San Juan or The Hague.

For more than a year, the People’s Progressive Party made Venezuelan entanglement and U.S. sanctions the centrepiece of its case against the opposition. In June 2024, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his father under the Global Magnitsky framework for alleged public corruption and gold smuggling. The Bank of Guyana closed their accounts. In October 2025, a federal grand jury in Florida unsealed an eleven-count indictment.

The PPP did not let a single day of that go to waste. Vice President Jagdeo went on television to warn that the country itself could face sanctions and big trouble with the United States if Mohamed were elected. The U.S. Ambassador called the prospect concerning and problematic. A U.S. Congressman publicly branded Mohamed a pro-Maduro puppet candidate. The message to voters was clear, repetitive, and unmistakable: the opposition is the Venezuelan problem, the opposition is the sanctions risk, a vote for them is a vote to drag Maduro and the Treasury Department down on all our heads.

The standard the PPP applied to Azruddin Mohamed was this: association with U.S. sanctions and a Venezuelan taint disqualifies you from public trust, full stop. By that exact standard, what is a consortium owned by Venezuelan nationals, directed by an alleged former PDVSA operative with frozen Andorra accounts, financed adjacent by a Venezuelan family bank the FBI raided over PDVSA money and the Fed expelled from the U.S. financial system?

If a sanctioned gold dealer represents a national-security emergency, why does a PDVSA-linked network holding the keys to the national power plant qualify as American excellence?

The government invented that standard. It applied it with maximum force against its political opponents. It then abandoned it entirely when the same criteria attached to its own flagship project, its own contractors, and its own financiers.

That is not a policy contradiction. It is a confession.

The 592 Guardian calls on the Ministry of Finance to make public the full nature of BSJI’s role in the Gas-to-Energy project — every communication, every proposal, every meeting. We call on the GTE Taskforce to explain why a consortium that submitted the highest bid was selected, who conducted due diligence on the Venezuelan ownership and PDVSA connections of the principals, and what, if anything, was disclosed to EXIM before the US$527 million loan was signed. We call on parliamentary committees to summon Winston Brassington and examine the procurement record in the public interest.

And we call on every Guyanese who sat through the PPP’s Venezuela lectures during the 2025 election campaign to hold this government to its own proclaimed standard — because a nation that cannot apply its principles evenhandedly has no principles at all.

 

— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board

Gone: The Data Commissioner

/1 Comment/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN

Independent Accountability Journalism

 EDITORIAL •ACCOUNTABILITY

June 2026

Gone: The Data Commissioner, the Witness, and the Charade of Accountability

 On Monday, the high-profile elections fraud trial proceeding before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court was adjourned — not because justice had run its course, but because the State’s own witness had apparently run away.

Aneal Giddings, who served as Information Technology Manager at the Guyana Elections Commission during the catastrophically contested March 2020 General and Regional Elections, is currently out of the jurisdiction. The prosecution, unable to produce him, applied to have his evidence-in-chief received via Zoom. Defence attorney Nigel Hughes objected on grounds that a witness of Giddings’ centrality to the case must appear in person for cross-examination — a position this publication considers entirely correct as a matter of both law and elementary fairness.

Magistrate McGusty offered a reasonable compromise: remote evidence-in-chief, with Giddings present in person for cross-examination. The prosecution sought instructions. When the matter was recalled, the State’s preference was to defer his testimony entirely — until he becomes available.

The court was then informed that the next scheduled witness is former Minister of Home Affairs Robeson Benn, expected on Wednesday, June 24. The trial grinds on. But the question this development raises does not grind on quietly. It detonates.

 The Double Vacancy at the Heart of Guyana’s Digital State

Here is what the public record now compels us to state plainly: Aneal Giddings is not merely a reluctant witness in an elections fraud prosecution. He is, simultaneously, Guyana’s newly appointed Data Protection Commissioner — the sole officer of a statutory body whose mandate is to regulate the collection, storage, processing, and transfer of personal data in a country where an oil boom has accelerated state and corporate data-harvesting at a pace that existing law is utterly ill-equipped to address.

Sources available to The 592 Guardian indicate that Giddings has not temporarily travelled. He has migrated permanently to New York.

If this is accurate, then Guyana currently has no functioning Data Protection Commissioner. The office is not dormant. It is abandoned. And in that vacuum, data harvesting proceeds — commercial, governmental, and extractive — without the statutory oversight the legislature intended when it established the Data Protection Act.

We ask the Ali administration directly: Is the Data Protection Commission operational? Is Aneal Giddings being paid from the public purse while residing permanently in New York? Has the government received formal notice of his departure or his intention to vacate the office? And if he has vacated it in fact if not yet in law, when does the administration intend to tell the Guyanese people?

 A Witness in an Elections Fraud Trial Cannot Simply Be Unavailable

Giddings is not a peripheral figure in this prosecution. As GECOM’s IT Manager during the 2020 elections, he occupied one of the most consequential technical positions in what became the most disputed electoral count in Guyana’s post-independence history. The charges before the court — nineteen counts of conspiracy, implicating Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers, former PNCR Chairperson Volda Lawrence, and others — rest substantially on what happened to the data during that count. Giddings sits at the technical centre of that question.

The defence is right to insist on in-person cross-examination. The State was right to acknowledge it cannot proceed otherwise. But what neither acknowledgement addresses is the deeper structural embarrassment now before this court and this country: the prosecution’s key technical witness has emigrated, and the government that is prosecuting the case appointed that same witness to a statutory regulatory post that now sits empty.

How does one square that appointment with due diligence? Did no one in the relevant ministry ask whether a witness in a live criminal prosecution — one touching directly on his conduct at GECOM — was an appropriate candidate for a statutory office requiring continuous and in-country presence? Or was the appointment itself a form of patronage extended to a figure whose continued cooperation with the prosecution required some form of inducement?

We do not assert the latter as fact. We assert it as a question the public is entitled to have answered, openly, by the administration that made the appointment.

 The Data Protection Vacuum Is Not a Technicality

Guyana’s Data Protection Act was enacted to govern a landscape that is rapidly becoming one of the most consequential regulatory terrains in the country’s modern history. State agencies collect biometric data. Oil companies and their contractors collect proprietary geological data that doubles as territorial intelligence. Telecommunications providers harvest communications metadata. Commercial banks and fintechs process transaction data that, in aggregate, constitutes an intimate record of economic life.

The Data Protection Commissioner is not a ceremonial post. It is the statutory checkpoint between Guyanese citizens and the entities — state and private — that seek to exploit their personal data for commercial or political advantage. In a petrostate economy characterised by procurement opacity, regulatory capture, and institutional thinness, that checkpoint matters.

If the Commissioner’s chair is empty because the appointee has migrated to New York while nominally holding office, then data harvesting is proceeding in a legislative context that provides for oversight but in practice provides none. The companies drilling into Guyana’s data ecosystem — like the companies drilling into its seabed — are operating in a surveillance-friendly vacuum.

The legislature did not pass the Data Protection Act so that it could be administered by a phantom.

 What the Administration Must Do

The 592 Guardian calls on the Ali administration to immediately clarify the status of Aneal Giddings’ appointment as Data Protection Commissioner, including whether he has formally resigned, whether he continues to draw salary or allowances, and whether any acting appointment has been made in his absence.

We call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to publicly address the implications of the prosecution’s key witness having emigrated, and to explain what assurances — if any — the State has secured regarding his return and availability to testify.

We call on the National Assembly’s relevant committee to summon the Minister responsible for the Data Protection Act to account for the operational status of the Commission. The people of Guyana are entitled to know whether the Act they funded through their parliamentary representatives is being administered or merely filed.

And we call on civil society — particularly the legal profession, technology sector advocates, and human rights organisations — to monitor this vacancy actively. The absence of a functioning Data Commissioner is not an administrative oversight. It is a governance failure with direct consequences for every Guyanese whose personal data is being collected, processed, and traded while the office meant to protect them sits dark.

 The elections fraud prosecution is, at its core, a test of whether Guyana’s institutions will hold those who violated the democratic will of the people accountable. If its witnesses can emigrate and its statutory officers can vanish without consequence, that test is already failing. Guyana cannot prosecute electoral fraud on Mondays and tolerate institutional abandonment on Tuesdays. The law applies, or it does not.

 — The Editors, The 592 Guardian

A Strategy, Finally — Two Decades and Hundreds of Billions Too Late

/0 Comments/in /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN

ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

EDITORIAL  |  June, 2026

A Strategy, Finally — Two Decades and Hundreds of Billions Too Late

Minister Zulfikar Mustapha calls the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority’s first published strategy a historic milestone. The more urgent history is the one nobody explained at the soft launch: how an apex agency entrusted with tens of billions of dollars a year operated for two decades without a governing document — and why the man now welcoming this strategy as NDIA chairman is the same official an earlier audit found had personally breached procurement law.

At Thursday’s soft launch, Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha presented the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority’s first-ever published strategy as a watershed moment — the document through which Guyana would finally chart a path toward resilient, productive, and prosperous water management. NDIA Chairman Lionel Wordsworth called it an important roadmap for phased implementation.

Both men spoke as though the absence of such a document until 2026 were a footnote rather than the headline. It is the headline.

 NDIA was established under the Drainage and Irrigation Act as the country’s apex authority for drainage, irrigation, and flood control more than two decades ago. For all but the final weeks of that history, it has operated, by its own minister’s admission, without a strategy.

The money that moved through that strategic vacuum was not modest. The 2023 national budget allocated $19.7 billion for drainage and irrigation works; NDIA’s capital allocation alone for pump stations, structures, and retention payments was budgeted at $6.3 billion that year, yet actual spending reached $15.3 billion — more than double the approved figure, with no published strategy to explain the overrun. In 2024, $72.3 billion of a $97.6 billion agriculture budget was directed to drainage and irrigation. In 2025, Senior Minister Dr. Ashni Singh announced a further $73.2 billion injection to complete pump stations and advance canal works.

Multiply those figures across the years NDIA has existed, and the sums entrusted to an agency operating without a published strategy run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Against what plan were those budgets built? Against what targets were they measured?

Those are not rhetorical questions. They are the questions the Auditor General’s own office was effectively forced to ask.                     A performance audit of NDIA’s asset management, covering January 2021 to June 2024 and tabled only weeks ago, found widespread weaknesses: poor documentation, unfilled key positions, inadequate maintenance systems, and a lack of accountability for billions of dollars in public property.

The audit was triggered by NDIA’s own escalating maintenance expenditure, which rose from $1.07 billion in 2021 to $2.46 billion in 2023, and by persistent public complaints about flooding despite that spending. The total bill to maintain more than 500 pieces of NDIA equipment over the period came to $6.67 billion. Twenty-two recommendations followed. Notably absent from that list: write a strategy — because, apparently, no one in the chain of oversight thought to ask why one did not already exist.

Even that audit has been publicly challenged as insufficient. A critique published in response to the Auditor General’s findings argued that the report measured compliance, not performance: it could not tell taxpayers how many kilometers of canals were maintained, how many structures were rehabilitated, how many acres were protected from flooding, or what NDIA actually achieved with the billions it spent.

If neither the agency nor the body auditing it can answer that question, what exactly is the new strategy being launched to fix — and how would the public ever know if it worked?

The most damning fact in this story is not a figure. It is a name. Lionel Wordsworth, the NDIA chairman who stood at Thursday’s launch describing the strategy as an important roadmap, is the same Lionel Wordsworth who served as NDIA’s chief executive in 2012, when an internal audit of fuel consumption and equipment maintenance found that fraudulent acts had been committed in breach of the Procurement Act 2003 and recommended his immediate dismissal. That audit found undated, unstamped contractor quotations indicating deliberate concealment, and a senior engineer who certified payments to his own uncle without declaring the conflict. President Donald Ramotar sat on the findings for months without acting.                                                                                                                          When the coalition government took office in 2015, Wordsworth was placed on 308 days of accumulated leave and never returned to the post. In 2020 he resurfaced as a ministerial advisor to Minister Mustapha. He is now NDIA’s chairman — the man entrusted with welcoming a strategy meant to close the very governance gaps an earlier audit found him personally responsible for opening.

This media outfit asks, formally and on the record, the questions Thursday’s soft launch was not built to answer.                                                       
How did NDIA prepare its annual budget estimates for two decades without a governing strategy to justify them against?
Under what framework were the $216 million in advances linked to pump station projects — flagged as unrecovered in the Auditor General’s 2024 report — approved and disbursed?
What internal control today distinguishes sole-sourced contracts and procurement decisions from the undocumented, undated, relative-awarded contracts an earlier audit found at the same agency under the same chairman
And why, fourteen years after an audit recommended his dismissal for fraud, does Lionel Wordsworth remain inside the institution he was found to have failed — now at its helm?

 None of this is new to NDIA’s file. As far back as 2013, opposition parliamentarians flagged the Auditor General’s recommendation that NDIA operate its own independent accounting body rather than have its funds run through the central ministry — a structural safeguard against precisely the undocumented, unaccountable spending the 2025 performance audit found all over again. That recommendation went unimplemented through a coalition government and is apparently still unimplemented under this one.

The pattern is not partisan. It is institutional, and it has now spanned three administrations without correction.

A strategy document, however well produced, does not retroactively account for two decades of spending without one.

The 592 Guardian calls on the Public Accounts Committee and the National Assembly to require NDIA to publish, alongside this strategy, a full reconciliation of capital and maintenance expenditure against measurable deliverables for every year since the authority’s establishment — and to explain, publicly and specifically, the continued tenure of a chairman an audit once found to have personally breached the Procurement Act.                                  Until those answers are on the record, Thursday’s soft launch was not a milestone. It was an admission, twenty years late, dressed up as one.

— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board

The Remainder Seat

/0 Comments/in /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN

ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

EDITORIAL ♦  June, 2026

The Remainder Seat

Amanza Walton-Desir secured Guyana’s last parliamentary seat by force of arithmetic, not breadth of support. Her nominations to the Guyana Elections Commission behave as though the opposite were true.

On September 1, 2025, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) secured a single seat in Guyana’s 65-member National Assembly with 4,585 votes — 1.05 percent of the national count, the final seat allocated. It claimed only because no other minor party retained sufficient remainder votes to capture it.

That arithmetic is the entirety of FGM’s parliamentary mandate. It is not a foundation from which to dictate the composition of a constitutional commission.

Yet that is the posture Amanza Walton-Desir has adopted in her response to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s consultation on Opposition-nominated appointments to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). She nominated Nigel London for the seat — a figure already designated under FGM’s internal rotation arrangement to inherit her own place in the 13th Parliament.

The nomination is not a contribution to a national consultation. It is succession planning routed through a constitutional appointment.

Walton-Desir’s own description of London — that he “will ask difficult questions” and engage “critically with the work of the Commission” — is the full extent of the case made for him. No electoral-law background, no administrative record, no demonstrated familiarity with the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) has been offered to the public to justify placing him at the center of Guyana’s electoral machinery.

Walton-Desir then proposed retaining one of the three outgoing Opposition-nominated commissioners — Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin, or Desmond Trotman — for a two-year transitional period, while converting the other two into paid advisers to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. The justification offered was “institutional knowledge.” That argument does not survive contact with GECOM’s governing framework.

The Commission operates under ROPA and its accompanying regulations — codified, public, and accessible to any attorney competent in electoral law. There is no proprietary expertise sealed inside three individuals that cannot be transferred through ordinary statutory and constitutional literacy

.

What the proposal does guarantee is a new and unnecessary expenditure: paid advisory roles for commissioners whose 2025 tenure was defined by a documented pattern of walkouts from GECOM statutory meetings in the run-up to the September elections — disruptions serious enough to draw public criticism from the Attorney General and to repeatedly force the Commission to invoke its constitutional quorum-reduction provisions.

A record of repeated withdrawal from the table is an unusual qualification to monetize as institutional memory.

 Having built her case for retention on uncertain ground, Walton-Desir then moved to disqualify Mohamed’s own short-listed nominees — Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, attorney-at-law Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva — on the basis that their ongoing representation of Mohamed in litigation creates “avoidable perceptions of a conflict of interest.” The objection does not hold. Representing a client in an unrelated legal matter does not, on its own, disqualify an attorney from serving on a constitutional commission; applied consistently, the standard would empty Guyana’s election-law bar of eligible candidates. Forde’s record as Shadow Attorney General during the 12th Parliament and his sustained litigation on voter verification and biometric safeguards make him among the more credentialed names ever floated for the post — credentials Walton-Desir, herself an attorney, did not dispute. She raised perception, not competence, while subjecting her own nominee to no comparable scrutiny.

The cumulative effect of Walton-Desir’s submission — retain a familiar commissioner, install an untested successor, and block the Opposition Leader’s legally credentialed nominees — is not reform.

 It preserves a known arrangement under reform’s vocabulary, the kind of continuity that has long allowed GECOM’s commissioner seats to function as fixed points in the country’s entrenched political duopoly rather than as instruments of an electoral authority answerable to the country as a whole.

Walton-Desir’s own framing — that “the question before us is not only who should sit at the table, but whether we are prepared to improve the table itself” — is correct as a proposition and undercut by her own conduct. Nothing in her submission improves the table. It rearranges the chairs while keeping familiar hands on them.

 

FGM holds its single seat in the National Assembly by the narrowest possible margin, and Walton-Desir would be better served treating that fact as a constraint rather than a credential.

A party that arrived in Parliament on a remainder seat does not thereby acquire standing to dictate the architecture of Guyana’s electoral authority through nomination and obstruction.

 If FGM intends to grow beyond 1.05 percent of the national vote, it will not do so by clinging to proximity with the order it claims to be reforming. It will do so by demonstrating, in full public view, the judgment that 4,585 voters were asked to trust on faith — and by recognizing that a mandate this narrow obligates restraint, not maximalism.

— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board

Guyana’s Uranium Gamble

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦RESOURCE ACCOUNTABILITY♦ JUNE 2026

Guyana’s Uranium Gamble: Strategic Resource, Weak Safeguards

The announcement that Canadian junior explorer U92 Energy Corp. has acquired a decade’s worth of technical data for the Kurupung uranium project should not be treated as routine mining news. It is, in fact, a development that exposes a glaring policy vacuum, raises serious regulatory questions, and signals that Guyana may be drifting into a strategically sensitive sector without the institutional readiness to manage it.

Uranium is not gold, nor is it bauxite. It is a strategic mineral tied directly to nuclear energy and global security frameworks.

 Countries that permit uranium exploration and production do so under strict legislative regimes, layered oversight, and international safeguards aligned with institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Guyana, by contrast, appears to be approaching uranium under the same legal and administrative architecture used for conventional minerals. This approach is, at best, outdated, and at worst, dangerously insufficient.

At the center of this issue is U92’s acquisition of a comprehensive historical dataset underpinning a 20.6 million-pound uranium resource estimate. The dataset—comprising geological mapping, drill records, assay results, geophysical surveys, and metallurgical analyses—represents the intellectual and technical foundation of the project. Control of this data is not incidental; it determines how the resource is valued, developed, and ultimately monetized.

Yet this critical asset was secured through a CA$500,000 transaction settled entirely in shares.

 

This raises immediate red flags. Share-based transactions of this nature often obscure true valuation and bypass the financial transparency that accompanies cash deals. They can signal limited liquidity on the part of the acquiring company, while simultaneously transferring significant value through speculative equity instruments. In practical terms, a decade of strategic geological intelligence has now changed hands without a clear indication of its real market worth.

More troubling, however, is the layered corporate structure through which control of this uranium project has been assembled. U92, a Canadian entity, acquired a Singaporean company—LIA Industries—which in turn controls a Guyanese subsidiary holding the prospecting licenses. Now, through a separate agreement, U92 consolidates ownership of the project’s technical data.

This multi-jurisdictional arrangement complicates oversight and raises legitimate questions about beneficial ownership, regulatory scrutiny, and accountability.

 It is precisely the type of structure that demands heightened due diligence from state agencies, particularly when the underlying asset involves a mineral of strategic importance.

There is no public indication that such scrutiny has been applied.

Equally concerning is the apparent absence of a national uranium policy. Guyana has not articulated how it intends to regulate uranium exploration, manage its environmental risks, or comply with international nuclear material safeguards. There is no evidence of a dedicated legal framework governing the handling, storage, transport, or export of radioactive materials. Nor is there clarity on whether existing institutions possess the technical capacity to oversee such a sector.

Instead, what is unfolding suggests that Guyana is allowing a foreign junior explorer—whose primary asset is speculative capital—to establish early control over both the physical resource and the data that defines it.

The timeline adds further pressure. The prospecting licenses issued for the Kurupung property expire in April 2027, with possible extensions to 2029. This creates an inherent incentive to accelerate drilling and resource validation, potentially outpacing environmental oversight and regulatory preparedness. Already, a 5,000-metre diamond drilling program is being mobilized, with infrastructure development underway.

The pace of activity stands in stark contrast to the silence on policy.

This is not an argument against resource development. It is an argument for coherence, transparency, and strategic awareness

 Countries such as Canada and Australia permit uranium mining, but only within robust regulatory systems that integrate environmental protection, national security considerations, and international compliance obligations. Others, including Kazakhstan and Namibia, maintain strong state involvement in uranium projects to ensure national interests are preserved.

Guyana, on the other hand, appears to be entering this sector without a declared framework, while permitting complex offshore ownership structures and opaque transactions to define its trajectory.

This raises unavoidable questions.

What due diligence was conducted on U92 Energy Corp. and its affiliated entities? Did the Government of Guyana assess the implications of transferring control of a decade’s worth of uranium exploration data through a share-based transaction? Is there a national policy governing uranium exploration and potential production? Are Guyana’s laws aligned with international nuclear safeguards and export control regimes? And critically, who is ultimately accountable for ensuring that this sector develops in a manner consistent with national security and environmental protection?

These are not abstract concerns. They go to the heart of sovereignty, governance, and long-term national interest.

Guyana cannot afford to treat uranium as just another line item in its extractive portfolio. The decisions being made now—quietly, and with limited public scrutiny—will shape not only the future of this resource, but also the country’s credibility in managing strategically sensitive industries.

If there is a policy, it must be stated. If there are safeguards, they must be demonstrated. And if there is oversight, it must be visible

Anything less would suggest that Guyana is not managing its uranium potential—but surrendering it.

 

STOLEN FROM THE INTERIOR:

/0 Comments/in , /by

        THE 592 GUARDIAN     

INVESTIGATIVE EDITORIAL | ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM

STOLEN FROM THE INTERIOR:

How the State Has Looted, Ignored, and Buried the Amerindian Purpose Fund for Twenty-Five Years

The 2024 Auditor General’s Report does not merely flag irregularities in the Amerindian Purpose Fund. It confirms — once again, with the numbing patience of a system that no longer expects to be heard — that a fund established for Guyana’s most marginalized communities has been allowed to dissolve into a legal void, a financial black hole, and a graveyard of undelivered promises. This editorial names the failure, traces its architecture, and holds its custodians to account.

The 592 Guardian   | Investigative Desk | June 2026

Let us begin with what the law says — or rather, what it no longer says. The Amerindian Purpose Fund was created under Section 28 of the Amerindian Act Chapter 29:01. In 2006, that Act was repealed. The successor legislation, the Amerindian Act 2006, made no provision for the Fund’s continued operation. From that moment, the Amerindian Purpose Fund ceased to have a legal foundation.

That was nineteen years ago.

In nineteen years, no administration — not the APNU+AFC coalition, not the PPP/C government that succeeded it — has seen fit to pass the enabling legislation that would give this Fund a lawful basis. Money has continued to move through it. Cheques have been written in its name. Communities have been told projects are funded. And the legal infrastructure to govern any of it has simply never existed.

A fund created to serve Indigenous communities has operated without law, without accounts, and without consequence — for nearly two decades. That is not negligence. That is policy.

The 2024 Auditor General’s Report, paragraphs 208 through 210, confirms what previous reports have confirmed in 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, and before that. Financial Statements for the Amerindian Purpose Fund were not presented for audit. The finding, the AG notes with understated precision, echoes “similar observations noted in previous years.” This is the language of an institution that has stopped expecting accountability and begun merely recording its absence.

The 592 Guardian will not accept that framing. We place the evidence before the public as a prosecutor places it before a jury — methodically, without embellishment, and with the full weight of what it means.

II.THE FOURTEEN COUNTS — EVIDENCE OF INSTITUTIONAL BETRAYAL

The following findings are drawn directly from the 2024 AG Report and corroborated by the AG’s prior annual reports. Each constitutes a discrete, documented failure. Together they form a pattern so consistent, so repeated, and so unaddressed that no honest observer can attribute it to circumstance.

|COUNT 1: OPERATING WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY

Source: 2024 AG Report, Para. 209; Amerindian Act 2006

Finding: The Fund’s enabling legislation was repealed in 2006. No replacement provision was enacted.

Duration: 19 years of unlawful operation

Every transaction processed through the APF since 2006 has occurred in a legal vacuum. No minister, no permanent secretary, no budget officer authorized to disburse public funds through this vehicle had — or has — a valid statutory basis to do so. The question that neither the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs nor the Attorney General’s Chambers has been asked to answer publicly is this: what is the legal status of every dollar disbursed through this fund since the repeal? The 592 Guardian asks it now.

|COUNT 2: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. ZERO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Source: 2024 AG Report, Para. 210; AG 2014 Report

Finding: No audited financial statements have been produced since the Fund opened in 2000.

Pattern: Flagged repeatedly — including as a “similar observation” from prior years in 2024

The Amerindian Purpose Fund was opened in 2000. It has never — not once in twenty-five years — produced an audited financial statement. Section 29 of the Act explicitly requires the Ministry to prepare annual financial statements subject to audit by the Auditor General. This requirement has been consistently violated across multiple administrations. The Ministry’s response to the 2024 finding? Staff shortages. The same response given last year. The year before that.

|COUNT 3: BANK ACCOUNT LAST RECONCILED: 2009

Source: AG 2020 Report, as reported by Stabroek News

Finding: The Fund’s bank account has not been balanced against its books in over 15 years.

Implication: No one in government can say with certainty how much money is in this Fund or where it went.

Bank reconciliation is not an advanced financial practice. It is the most basic act of fiscal stewardship — matching what the ledger says against what the bank statement shows. The APF’s account has not been reconciled in over fifteen years. This means that the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs has been authorizing expenditures from an account whose balance it has never verified. The Ministry does not know what it holds. It does not know what it has spent. And it has told the nation’s auditors, in effect, that this is acceptable.

|COUNT 4: GYD $647.6M OUT THE DOOR. NO RECEIPTS.

Source: 2024 AG Report

Amount: GYD $647.6M (approx. US$3.1M)

Finding: 109 cheque orders from 2023 and 2024 remain uncleared — money paid in advance, proof of delivery never returned.

One hundred and nine cheque orders. Nearly three million US dollars. Disbursed in advance. Not one receipt confirmed what the money purchased. Under standard financial regulations, cheque orders must be cleared within thirty days. These have not been cleared. In some cases they have been outstanding for well over a year. The rules exist precisely to prevent public money from disappearing without trace. Those rules have been systematically ignored.

|COUNT 5: GYD $352.6M STILL UNCLEARED AS OF SEPTEMBER 2025

Source: 2024 AG Report

Amount: GYD $352.6M (approx. US$1.7M)

Finding: 74 cheque orders from 2023 remained uncleared as of September 2025 — nearly two years overdue.

These are not recent disbursements. These are 2023 cheque orders that had still not been accounted for as of September 2025. The rules gave 30 days. Two years passed. The Ministry issued no public explanation. No official was disciplined. No money was recovered. The Audit Office issued a recommendation. The Ministry said it would follow up.

|COUNT 6: GYD $101.5M IN STALE CHEQUES — 19 VILLAGES LEFT WITHOUT CAPITAL FUNDS

Source: 2024 AG Report, Para. 208

Amount: GYD $101.5M (approx. US$487,000)

Finding: 25 cheques for capital projects across 19 Village Councils written, recorded as spent, and allowed to expire undisbursed.

This is the finding that should have triggered a parliamentary emergency. Twenty-five cheques. Nineteen communities. Nearly half a million US dollars designated for capital projects — roads, drainage, water, community infrastructure — written, recorded in the public accounts as expenditure, and then allowed to go stale in a government drawer. The money was never delivered. The projects were never built. The communities were never told.

Half a million dollars for nineteen Indigenous communities — written, recorded as spent, and left to expire. Not one village was named. Not one official was held accountable.

And this is where the failure compounds into something uglier still: the AG Report does not name the nineteen communities. Nineteen Indigenous villages are owed capital project money that went stale. They are owed the basic dignity of being identified as victims of this failure. The 592 Guardian demands their names be published. If the Ministry will not publish them, we will use every available mechanism to obtain and print them.

|COUNT 7: THE MINING MONEY THAT NEVER CAME

Source: Stabroek News, February 2022; Public record

Finding: GGMC — the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission — is required to contribute to the Fund from mining activity. In 2020 and 2021, it paid nothing.

While Guyana’s mining sector generated tens of billions in revenue and the country celebrated oil-era GDP growth, the statutory contributions owed to a fund for Indigenous communities from that very extractive activity were simply not made. No penalty was levied. No corrective transfer was ordered. The GGMC, a state entity, violated its statutory obligation to the APF without consequence. The government that presides over both entities said nothing.

|COUNT 8: THE LOGBOOK NOBODY KEPT

Source: 2024 AG Report

Finding: The Cheque Order Register — the basic ledger tracking every advance — was not maintained. Auditors could not measure the full scale of the problem.

The Cheque Order Register is not a complex financial instrument. It is a logbook. It records every advance made against the Fund so that auditors — and the public — can follow the money. It was not kept. This means the scale of the uncleared cheques problem documented in this report is a floor, not a ceiling. The true extent of what has been disbursed and not accounted for cannot be determined because the Ministry did not maintain the records that would make determination possible. This is not a filing error. It is the destruction — through inaction — of the evidentiary basis for accountability.

|COUNT 9: THE MINISTRY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT OWNS

Source: 2024 AG Report

Finding: Asset inventories not updated — a breach of the Stores Regulations. Flagged in previous years.

The Ministry of Amerindian Affairs cannot produce an accurate inventory of the assets it holds. This is a violation of the Stores Regulations. It means that equipment, vehicles, and materials procured through this Fund — paid for with public money designated for Indigenous communities — cannot be verified as existing, functioning, or located. The Ministry is a steward that cannot account for what it holds in trust.

|COUNT 10: FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE IMPLEMENTED.

Source: 2024 AG Report

Finding: Of the 2023 audit’s 5 recommendations, only 1 was fully implemented. The remaining 4 were partially addressed at best.

Pattern: Identical scorecard to prior years.

The Audit Office does not make recommendations casually. Each recommendation represents a documented failure of governance with a prescribed corrective action. Of five recommendations issued after the 2023 audit, four remain unimplemented entering 2025. This is not a ministry struggling to comply. This is a ministry that has calculated — correctly, so far — that non-compliance carries no cost.

|COUNT 11: FLAGGED SINCE 2014. TWO GOVERNMENTS. SAME FINDING.

Source: AG Reports 2014–2024; Public record

Finding: These failures predate the current administration. The PPP/C and APNU+AFC both presided over this fund without correcting its structural deficiencies.

This editorial does not spare the previous administration. The APNU+AFC coalition governed from 2015 to 2020 and produced the same audit findings, the same non-responses, and the same institutional inertia. The APF’s condition is not a partisan problem. It is a problem of the Guyanese state’s relationship with its Indigenous citizens — a relationship in which accountability has never been demanded and has therefore never been delivered. Both governing parties bear responsibility. The current administration bears current responsibility.

|COUNT 12: “WRONG TIME TO DISCUSS” — THE MINISTER’S WORDS ON RECORD

Source: Stabroek News, December 2021

Finding: When APF failures made the news in 2021, the subject minister told the press it was the ‘wrong time to discuss’ the matter.

In December 2021, the Amerindian Purpose Fund’s failures became newsworthy. Communities were asking questions. Journalists were filing queries. The minister responsible for the Fund’s oversight told the press — on record — that it was the “wrong time to discuss” the matter. Four audit reports later, the finding reads identically. The 592 Guardian asks: when is the right time? After five more reports? Ten? When has the last cheque gone stale and the last community has stopped asking?

III.THE EVIDENCE — BY THE NUMBERS
FINDING
AMOUNT
 
 
STATUS

 
Uncleared cheque orders (2023–24)

 GYD $647.6M / US$3.1M

 109 orders — no receipts returned
Stale cheques — Village Councils

 GYD $101.5M / US$487K

 25 cheques expired; 19 communities unserved
Long-outstanding orders (to Sept 2025)

 GYD $352.6M / US$1.7M

 74 orders from 2023 — nearly 2 years overdue
GGMC statutory contributions unpaid

 Unknown

 Zero paid in 2020 and 2021
Financial statements produced (since 2000)

 None

 25 consecutive years — zero audited accounts
Bank reconciliations (since 2009)

 None

 16+ years — no balance verification
Prior recommendations implemented (2023)

 1 of 5

 4 outstanding — same pattern as prior years
IV.THE ACCUSED — NAMING INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Accountability journalism requires more than the passive voice. It is not enough to say that “the Fund failed” or that “statements were not produced.” Institutions do not fail in the abstract. People make decisions — or fail to make them — and those decisions have consequences. The 592 Guardian names the institutional actors who bear direct responsibility for the condition of the Amerindian Purpose Fund.

|THE MINISTRY OF AMERINDIAN AFFAIRS

As the line ministry responsible for the APF, the Ministry bears primary institutional culpability. Its permanent secretary and budget officers have presided over twenty-five years without financial statements, fifteen years without bank reconciliation, and a cheque register that was simply never maintained. Its formal responses to audit findings — “staff shortages,” “will follow up,” “ongoing” — constitute a studied contempt for the oversight function of the Audit Office. The Ministry does not lack the resources to comply. Guyana is the fastest-growing economy in the Western Hemisphere. What it lacks is the will.

|THE MINISTER OF AMERINDIAN AFFAIRS

Political accountability sits above administrative accountability. The minister who told the press in 2021 that the APF’s failures were the “wrong time to discuss” is on record. That deflection was not a one-time lapse of judgement. It was the public expression of a governing philosophy: that the Amerindian communities served by this fund are not a constituency whose grievances require urgent attention. The minister responsible for the APF — then and now — must answer publicly for the condition of this institution.

|THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The legal vacuum at the heart of the APF is not a mystery. It is a known deficiency that has existed since 2006. The Office of the Attorney General advises the state on legal compliance. It has had nineteen years to advise that the Fund requires enabling legislation. Either that advice was given and ignored — in which case, the public deserves to know — or it was never given, which is a dereliction of institutional duty.

|THE GUYANA GEOLOGY AND MINES COMMISSION

The GGMC has a statutory obligation to contribute to the Amerindian Purpose Fund from mining revenues. In 2020 and 2021, it contributed nothing. In years when Guyana’s extractive sector was generating record revenues — revenues derived in significant part from activity on and near Indigenous lands — the state entity tasked with channeling a portion of those revenues back to affected communities simply did not do so. No penalty was imposed. No public explanation was offered. This is not a compliance failure. It is a choice.

V.THE VERDICT — WHAT MUST HAPPEN NOW

The 592 Guardian does not issue verdicts in the judicial sense. We issue them in the democratic sense: we place the evidence before the public and call upon those with the power to act to exercise it. The following is not a wish list. It is a minimum standard of governance in a country that calls itself a constitutional democracy.

1.Immediate enabling legislation

The National Assembly must pass legislation giving the Amerindian Purpose Fund a lawful operational basis. Every month this is delayed is another month of unlawful disbursement. Cabinet must bring the bill. The opposition must support it. There is no legitimate grounds to oppose it.

2.Publish the nineteen villages

The Ministry of Amerindian Affairs must immediately publish the names of the nineteen communities owed capital project money that went stale. These communities have a right to know. The 592 Guardian will pursue this through access to information mechanisms if the Ministry declines.

3.Full forensic audit of all APF transactions since 2006

The Audit Office, in cooperation with independent forensic accountants, must trace every transaction through the APF since the legal basis for the Fund was repealed. The public is entitled to know the full extent of what has been disbursed, to whom, and whether it reached its intended recipients.

4.Recover the GGMC arrears

The government must calculate and recover the statutory contributions owed to the APF by the GGMC for the years in which it paid nothing. These are not discretionary payments. They are legal obligations.

5.Name and discipline the officers responsible

The permanent secretaries, budget officers, and administrative officials who presided over the destruction of the Cheque Order Register, the failure to maintain asset inventories, and the non-production of financial statements must be identified and subjected to appropriate disciplinary proceedings under the Public Service Rules.

6.Parliamentary oversight hearing

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts must convene a dedicated hearing on the APF, at which the Minister, the Permanent Secretary, and the Auditor General must all appear. The hearings must be public and broadcast.

VI.CLOSING ARGUMENT

Guyana is producing over 900,000 barrels of oil per day. The Natural Resource Fund holds billions. The government speaks, at every international forum, of transformation, of prosperity, of a new Guyana. Meanwhile, nineteen Indigenous communities wait for capital project money that was recorded as spent years ago. A fund created in their name has no legal standing, no audited accounts, and a bank balance that no one has verified since 2009.

This is not a resource problem. Guyana is awash in resources. This is a prioritization problem — a revelation of who, in the hierarchy of the state’s concern, is considered worth accounting for.

The Amerindian communities of Guyana’s interior did not consent to being governed by institutions that cannot account for the money held in their name. They did not agree that their capital projects could be written into the budget and then allowed to expire in a Georgetown drawer. They did not accept that the legal framework governing their fund could dissolve without replacement and that no one in twenty years of governance would notice — or care enough to act.

No law. No oversight. No answers. Our communities deserve better. — Concerned Guyanese

The 592 Guardian will continue to report on this matter until the nineteen villages are named, the forensic audit is conducted, and the ministers and officials responsible are held to public account. We note, for the record, that the Amerindian Act 2006 — the very legislation that repealed this Fund’s legal basis — was passed under a government that celebrated itself as a champion of Indigenous rights. The hypocrisy of that record belongs in the history of this country.

The Interior is not a footnote. Its people are not a rounding error. And their money is not the state’s to lose.

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ Investigative Desk ♦ All findings sourced from the 2024 Auditor General’s Report and corroborated prior AG reports.

©2026 The 592 Guardian. All rights reserved. Reproduction for non-commercial public interest purposes permitted with attribution.