A Government of Six for One

/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The image is as striking as it is revealing: a single citizen seated across from a full complement of state power—one Vice President, five Ministers, and an entourage of aides—collectively engaged in what appears to be the resolution of his concern. On its face, it projects attentiveness, even compassion. But beneath that carefully staged tableau lies a far more troubling question: is this governance, or is this performance?

Let us begin with the obvious. One citizen. Six senior government officials. The immediate question is not whether the citizen deserves to be heard—he absolutely does—but whether this configuration represents a rational, efficient, and equitable use of state resources. How many issues could one individual realistically present that would require the simultaneous attention of such a high-level delegation? And if those issues indeed spanned multiple sectors, why was there no structured system to route them to the relevant agencies or technocrats?

This is where the image stops being impressive and starts becoming instructive. It suggests a breakdown—not of concern, but of systems. In any functional administrative framework, ministers set policy direction while technical officers, departments, and service units execute and engage. The presence of six senior officials at a single table for one case is not a sign of efficiency; it is an indictment of institutional weakness—or a deliberate substitution of systems with spectacle.

Consider the opportunity cost. At any given moment, each of these officials is responsible for portfolios affecting thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of citizens. And here lies the sharper question: what pressing national matters were deferred so that six could attend to one?

Citizens are still waiting for answers on the disappearance of firearms from police custody. Families continue to demand justice in unresolved murders, including the killing of Sayeed Baksh. Allegations of overreach by law enforcement—such as the arbitrary seizure of licensed firearms—remain sources of public unease. Cases of child sexual abuse persist with alarming frequency, requiring urgent, sustained intervention at the highest levels of policy and enforcement.

Yet, on this day, the machinery of the state converged not on those systemic crises, but on a single, highly visible engagement.

Equally troubling is the quiet abandonment of systems taxpayers have already funded. Significant public sums were invested in digitization—“world-class” complaint platforms and applications designed to streamline citizen engagement, reduce bottlenecks, and eliminate the need for precisely this kind of centralized spectacle. What is the status of those systems today? Are they functional, utilized, and delivering results? Or have they been relegated to presentation pieces—rolled out with fanfare, then quietly shelved?

The Minister of Public Service, in particular, owes the nation an update. If these digital mechanisms were implemented as promised, why are citizens still required to physically interface with the highest levels of government to have their concerns addressed?

Then there is the question of accountability within ministerial portfolios themselves. The public has seen troubling issues emerge—matters that go to the heart of governance, ethics, and responsibility. Concerns surrounding the destruction of public property, allegations of administrative overreach, and questions about the handling of public funds at the local government level remain unresolved in the public domain. These are not minor administrative hiccups; they are fundamental tests of transparency and leadership.

Yet instead of confronting these issues with clarity and urgency, the state appears more comfortable staging accessibility—performing governance rather than practicing it.

If this were the private sector, such an arrangement would be unthinkable. No serious enterprise would deploy six senior executives to troubleshoot a single customer issue when structured service channels exist. It would be deemed inefficient, costly, and unsustainable. Yet in the public sector—funded by taxpayers—such optics are presented as commendable.

Then there is the matter of timing and accessibility. Held during a workday, such engagements inherently exclude the very citizens they purport to serve—those who cannot afford to leave their jobs, forgo daily wages, or incur transportation costs. Accessibility is not achieved by proximity alone; it requires thoughtful scheduling, decentralization, and continuity. A one-day event, no matter how well attended by officials, cannot substitute for a permanent, functioning system of citizen engagement.

And context cannot be ignored. With local government elections on the horizon, the convergence of senior officials in highly publicized, citizen-facing engagements raises legitimate concerns. When state resources are deployed in ways that closely mirror campaign-style outreach, the distinction between governance and political theater becomes blurred—if not entirely erased.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁—𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲.

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. 𝗜𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲. 

𝗨𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲, 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸—𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲. 𝗔𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀.

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

Appeal Court Undermines Critical Oil Spill Safeguard with Parent Guarantee Ruling

/in , /by

BY: Dr. Vincent Adams

While looking ahead to a likely appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice, Guyanese and Caribbean citizens must be worried sick about the Appeal Court’s devastating overturn of Justice Sandil Kissoon’s May 3, 2023 sage landmark Decision requiring Stabroek Block operator, ExxonMobil (Exxon) Guyana Limited (EMGL) to provide a Parent Company Guarantee (PCG) from its parent company Exxon and affiliates CNOOC and HESS to cover 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 related to an oil spill.

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Head who created the PCG policy as the only necessary means to protect Guyana’s interest, with all due respect to the Court, I hands down disagree with its overturning of Kissoon’s profoundly thorough understanding of the context and well thought out Decision heralding the nostalgic feeling of national independence until now when ironically, the nation is about to celebrate its 60th anniversary of independence. Founding fathers Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan must be turning in their graves witnessing the surrendering of Guyana’s sovereignty to new colonial masters such as corporate giant Exxon.       

Unbelievably, although Exxon unconscionably corrals 86% of Guyana’s God given oil patrimony, the Court still chose to exonerate this filthy rich oil giant from all liabilities. EMGL, and 𝐧𝐨𝐭 Exxon, is the sole contractor party to the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) and all permits; and so, owns all of the liabilities despite 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 to cover an oil spill. Consequently, in the event of a spill, EMGL declares bankruptcy and Exxon goes scot-free, leaving Guyana holding the bag of financial bankruptcy and environmental catastrophe – unquestionably the trickery behind Exxon creating EMGL to insulate itself from liability; hence, the necessity for originating the PCG to save Guyana. Exxon would never get away with such a scheme in its home country of the USA; but, as Judge Kissoon wisely puts it “EMGL is engaged in a course of action 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 only by the omissions of a 𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐭, 𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐄𝐏𝐀…putting this nation and its people in 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the Court accepted the nonsensical ghost defence arguments that the word “unlimited” is not in the permits; and that the guarantee should be capped with an estimate. The following EPA permit clauses in litigation are presented below for readers to judge for yourselves:   

Clause 14:1 “The Permit Holder (EMGL) is liable for 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 associated with” an oil spill. 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞 the specificity of 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 (definition of “unlimited”) which means 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 for example at the phantom $2 Billion estimate (accepted by the Court).

Clause 14:10 “EMGL must provide from the Parent Company or CoVenturers (CNOOC and HESS) one or more legally binding agreements in which they undertake to provide adequate financial resources to pay their respective environmental obligations if EMGL “𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨 ”. 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞 the specificity of “if EMGL 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨”– dictating that parent Exxon must provide financial assurances/guarantee for 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 which EMGL cannot pay (𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨) Again, the definition of “unlimited”.  

In summary, clause 14.1 mandates that EMGL as the permit holder is responsible for 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬. However, if EMGL has inadequate resources to cover all costs “ 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨 ”, then 14.10 orders that deep pocket parent Exxon and CoVenturers are liable for 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 over what EMGL can cover. It is therefore unfathomable how such “unambiguous language” (Judge Kissoon’s words) could mean anything but an “unlimited guarantee”, since 𝐚𝐥𝐥 means no limit. Yes, the term “unlimited” is not mentioned in the permit, but that is ghost argument if the words mentioned mean the same as “unlimited”. Confusingly, the Court also found that “while Exxon remains liable for pollution related damages, that liability does not automatically require unlimited financial assurance”, completely ignoring the key operative words “𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬” at Clause 14.10 which could only mean “liability for 𝐚𝐥𝐥 pollution related damages”. It begs the question, why were key words “𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬” so visibly omitted from this most consequential finding?

Further, instead of “unlimited guarantee”, the ruling required an estimate of the damage as Financial Assurance, hinting that the Court may have been terribly misled that such an estimate is possible or ever done. Whosoever could do such an estimate has to be a fortune teller and should immediately purchase a lottery ticket. Nonetheless, just to humor such an ludicrous thought, the only possible estimating method would be of an analogous type using a similar situation such as the Macondo oil spill which occurred in our backyard, gushing 5 million barrels oil for 87 days costing British Petroleum $US145 B– none of which was, or could have been estimated! thereby leading to the million dollar question that was not addressed by the Court as to who will pay the cost of a Macondo type spill over and above Exxon’s farcical US $2B Assurance? It must be noted that this $2B ploy was Exxon’s first attempt in 2019 with insurance papers in hand to counter the EPA’s demand for the PCG, but it was instantly rejected.     

Another frivolous defence argument was that there was no specific PCG, when in fact, there can be no more of a substantively bona fide PCG than the legal language in the EPA Permits shown earlier. The only required side Agreement was to be amongst Exxon, CNOOC and HESS referenced in clause 14.10 earlier as the “binding agreement” to show how the three entities will share “pay their respective environmental obligations” which had to be approved by the EPA before start of operation. If the Govt testified that such an Agreement never existed, then they admitted to violating the permits by approving startups without that Agreement. The Court should have hoisted them by their own petard.

Sadly, the whole crux of the matter flies in the face of Guyana’s sovereignty at this time of the nation’s momentous 60th independence anniversary celebration, when Exxon is being enabled by authorities to evade its moral and financial obligation to bear all costs of spill damages occurring from operations earning it $Trillions, while cold bloodedly exposing to financial and environmental ruins, the poverty-stricken country that generously furnishes its wealth. Worse yet, besides dumping billions of barrels of hot, toxic, radioactive and oil laced produced water into our clean ocean, destroying its ecology and millions of fish eggs and fish life, and flaring of billions of cubic feet of toxic produced gas into our pristine air, causing health, acid rain, and climate change problems, Exxon is green-lighted to recklessly produce above the legal safe limits enshrined in the Environmental Impact Assessment, thus enhancing the chances of a spill without any liability coverage by virtue of this ruling. 

With Guyana at its tender age of policy and law making for this critical oil sector, consequential decisions such as this ruling must be informed by the numerous bad lessons learned from other countries. A case in point is the litigation in the British Courts involving Nigerians suing Shell Oil Co. for costs covering oil spills in Nigeria; but, because of the absence of a PCG, Shell’s defence was that the spills occurred under their subsidiary company as their operator, making Shell not liable. Surprise! Surprise!

Also, Repsol which operates in Guyana, was responsible for a small 12,000 barrels oil spill in Peru; and absent tight liability laws, the Government was forced to seize the passports of Repsol’s Executives and sued the company for US $Billions for cleanup and other liabilities, in addition to urgently establishing new laws to protect Peru from recurrences of this kind.

Lastly, it must not go unnoticed that Exxon had willingly agreed to, signed, and honored the PCG language first enshrined in the yellowtail exploration well permit in 2019 and repeated in all of the subsequent permits thereafter; but, only became an issue when the PPPC took office and sided with Exxon to negate it, resulting in the lawsuit by the two patriotic citizens that has brought us to this point.

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

Oil Wealth, Flooded Streets: The Reality They Didn’t Sell in Houston

/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The cameras in Houston didn’t show this.

While polished presentations and confident promises painted Guyana as the next oil-powered success story, back home the streets told a very different truth—one submerged in floodwater, dysfunction, and neglect.
This is Georgetown today.
Not a once-in-a-century disaster. Not an anomaly. But a recurring reality.

A capital city in a nation now awash with oil wealth—yet still unable to manage something as basic as drainage.
Investors heard about billions in revenue, booming GDP, and “world-class” ambitions. What they weren’t shown is this: দোকান fronts half underwater, streets turned canals, and citizens navigating daily life in conditions that belong to a forgotten era, not an emerging petro-state.

Because the uncomfortable truth is this—Guyana’s development story is becoming dangerously lopsided.
We are building upwards, showcasing glass and concrete, while the ground beneath us—our systems, our infrastructure, our planning—continues to fail.
And no amount of international praise or investor confidence can mask a simple question:
How can a country swimming in oil money still be drowning in rainwater?

This is not just about flooding. It is about priorities. It is about governance. It is about whether the wealth of a nation is being translated into real, lived improvements for its people—or merely into headlines and high-level speeches.
Because if “world-class” is the goal, then reality like this is not just inconvenient—it is disqualifying.

And the longer it is ignored, the more it exposes a truth no investor pitch can hide:
Guyana is not just rising.
In too many places, it is still sinking.

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

Theatre at The Hague: Venezuela Rejects the Verdict It Asked For

/in , /by

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Why submit to a court you have already decided to ignore?
Venezuela’s latest performance before the International Court of Justice wasn’t diplomacy — it was theatre. After participating in

proceedings, presenting arguments, and engaging the very machinery of international law, Interim President Delcy Rodriguez has now declared that her country will not accept the Court’s ruling if it affirms that the 1899 Arbitral Award legally settled the Essequibo boundary.


That raises a fundamental question: what was the point?
You do not walk into a courtroom only to announce, in advance, that the judge’s decision is irrelevant. That is not legal engagement — it is strategic posturing.


Rodriguez’s argument attempts to dress defiance in legal language. She claims that any ruling affirming the 1899 Award would somehow invalidate the 1966 Geneva Agreement and broader international law. But this is a contradiction that collapses under its own weight. The Geneva Agreement did not erase the 1899 Award; it created a mechanism to resolve Venezuela’s contention. When that mechanism failed, the matter was lawfully referred to the ICJ — the very process now underway.


Venezuela cannot invoke the Geneva Agreement as both shield and sword — embracing it when convenient, rejecting its logical outcomes when not.
More revealing, however, is the political strategy behind the statement. By declaring in advance that no ruling will be accepted, Caracas is attempting to delegitimize the Court before judgment is even delivered. It is laying the groundwork to ignore an outcome it anticipates will not go in its favour.


That is not a legal argument. It is an admission of expectation.
Rodriguez’s pivot toward “regional mediation” is equally telling. Calls for bilateral talks sound reasonable on the surface, but history shows that such approaches have produced decades of stalemate. The ICJ process exists precisely because those avenues failed. Suggesting a return to them now is less about peace and more about prolonging uncertainty.


And then there is the narrative — the sweeping historical claims, the maps, the emotional appeals about identity and memory. These are not new. They have been repeated for generations, often without substantiated control, governance, or administration over the territory in question. Meanwhile, Guyana’s case rests on documented legal instruments, internationally recognized boundaries, and continuous administration.
You cannot replace legal title with sentiment.


Even more striking is what Rodriguez chose not to say. Gone was the familiar rhetoric about US conspiracies and ExxonMobil plots — a notable shift given Venezuela’s changing geopolitical posture. What remains is a more calculated message: less noise, more positioning.


But beneath the recalibration lies the same core stance — reject the process if it does not deliver the desired outcome.
This is the contradiction Venezuela cannot escape. It wants the legitimacy of international law without the obligation to accept its conclusions.


So again, the question stands:
Why go through the exercise if you already knew — and rejected — the end result?

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

Venezuela Renews Essequibo Claim at ICJ, Insists on “Exclusive” Ownership

/in , /by

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has once again escalated its claim over Guyana’s Essequibo region, with President-in-charge Delcy Rodríguez appearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday to assert what Caracas describes as its “historical rights” to the territory.

Rodríguez argued that Venezuela is the sole legitimate owner of Guayana Essequiba, advancing the government’s long-standing narrative that the controversy must be resolved under the framework of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
In reaffirming its position, the Bolivarian Government insisted on the “absolute validity” of the Geneva Agreement, continuing to reject the legal weight of the 1899 Arbitral Award that internationally settled the boundary in Guyana’s favour.


The move underscores Venezuela’s ongoing effort to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICJ while simultaneously attempting to reframe the territorial controversy as an unresolved bilateral matter—an approach that stands in direct contrast to Guyana’s reliance on international law and judicial settlement.

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

One citizen, one Vice President, five ministers — a whole government at the table. Micromanagement or public service?

/in , /by

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

While one citizen receives the full attention of a Vice President and five ministers, the sharper question is this: what value are the rest of us getting for the money that is financing this entire expedition? Public office is not a stage for pageantry. Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether this is genuine service or an expensive exercise in political optics.

Execution-Style Killing in Georgetown: Police Know Suspect, Yet Probe Raises Alarming Questions

/in , /by

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Police are probing what appears to be a calculated, execution-style killing of a 23-year-old Cuban national in the heart of Georgetown—yet troubling questions are already emerging about the pace and intent of the investigation.


Dead is Dainier Vegas Infante, a janitor who lived in Alexander Village, gunned down just before dawn on Sunday outside a business place on Forshaw Street, Queenstown.


According to police reports, at approximately 5:45 a.m., four men descended on the location. One, armed with a handgun, approached two men sitting outside and casually engaged them in conversation—moments before violence erupted. As Infante exited the building and moved toward the group, the gunman allegedly opened fire without hesitation, striking him and leaving him to die on the spot.


The shooter then fled in a waiting car, while his accomplices scattered in different directions, suggesting a coordinated escape.
Infante was pronounced dead at the scene. His body now lies at Memorial Gardens Funeral Home awaiting a post-mortem.


In what should be a significant breakthrough, investigators—utilizing the Guyana Police Force Command Centre and surveillance networks—intercepted a vehicle believed to be tied to the killing. A 45-year-old woman from Little Diamond has since been arrested, and the vehicle is undergoing forensic examination.


More notably, sources confirm that investigators already know the identity of the gunman.
Yet despite surveillance footage, vehicle tracking data, and what appears to be a clear investigative trail, concerns are intensifying that the case is being inexplicably slowed. The question now looms large: with critical evidence in hand and a suspect identified, what is holding back swift justice?

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

Dirty Money in Plain Sight: Guyana’s Enablers Must Face the Spotlight

/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Corruption in Guyana is too often framed as a story of politicians and public officials. But that is only half the truth. The other half — quieter, more sophisticated, and far less scrutinized — lies with the professionals who make illicit wealth usable, movable, and ultimately untouchable.


Dirty money in Guyana does not operate in a vacuum. It relies on a network of enablers: lawyers who draft the paperwork, accountants who structure the books, real estate agents who close the deals, and financial intermediaries who move funds through the system without raising alarms. These are not shadowy figures operating on the margins. They are licensed, respected, and embedded within the formal economy.


And that is precisely the problem.
As Guyana’s oil wealth accelerates economic expansion, the country is becoming increasingly attractive not only for legitimate investment but also for questionable capital seeking a safe landing. Luxury developments are rising, land prices are surging, and large-scale transactions are happening at a pace that far exceeds the growth of regulatory oversight.


The question that must be asked is simple: who is checking the money?
High-value real estate transactions in Guyana have become one of the most effective vehicles for absorbing suspicious wealth. Properties can be purchased through companies, intermediaries, or proxies, masking the true beneficial owner. Once acquired, these assets provide both legitimacy and long-term value — a perfect conversion mechanism for illicit funds.
This is not theoretical. It mirrors patterns seen globally, where politically exposed individuals and their associates quietly move wealth into property markets, often with the assistance of professionals who either fail to ask questions or deliberately avoid them.


The gold sector presents another vulnerability. As one of Guyana’s most lucrative industries, gold has long been susceptible to smuggling, under-declaration, and opaque financial flows. When combined with weak monitoring and cross-border movement, it creates a fertile environment for laundering proceeds through export channels, shell companies, and falsified documentation.


Again, none of this happens without help.
Accountants reconcile figures that do not add up. Lawyers establish companies whose true owners remain hidden. Corporate service providers create layers of ownership that obscure accountability. Financial institutions process transactions that should, at minimum, trigger scrutiny.


To be clear, not every professional engaged in these sectors is complicit. But the system, as it currently stands, makes it far too easy for complicity — whether deliberate or negligent — to flourish without consequence.
Guyana’s anti-money laundering framework exists on paper, but enforcement remains inconsistent and, at times, selective. Oversight bodies are often under-resourced, fragmented, or slow to act. Meanwhile, those who facilitate questionable transactions operate in a space where the risk of detection is low and the penalties, if they come at all, are rarely dissuasive.
This imbalance creates a dangerous incentive structure: the rewards for enabling far outweigh the risks of being caught.


Globally, there is growing recognition that the fight against corruption cannot succeed without targeting enablers. The upcoming Illicit Finance Summit in London underscores this shift, with calls to bring lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, and other high-risk professionals fully under anti-money laundering obligations.
Guyana cannot afford to lag behind.
If the country is serious about safeguarding its oil-driven future, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: corruption is not just stolen money — it is a system supported by expertise.


That means expanding regulatory scrutiny beyond banks to include all professional intermediaries involved in high-value transactions. It means enforcing beneficial ownership transparency so that assets cannot be hidden behind layers of corporate secrecy. It means strengthening investigative capacity and ensuring that repeat offenders — not just politically exposed figures, but the professionals who assist them — are held accountable.
Most importantly, it means changing the narrative.
For too long, enablers have been treated as incidental actors — service providers caught in the periphery of corruption cases. In reality, they are central to the machinery that allows illicit wealth to survive.


Dirty money does not just pass through Guyana.
It is processed, structured, and legitimized here.
And until the country begins to treat enablers not as background figures but as key participants in corruption, the cycle will continue — quietly, efficiently, and in plain sight.

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

Mortgages for the Few: Why Guyana’s Rate Cuts Are a Mirage for the Masses

/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Warm words. Swift press releases. Three percent rates that gleam like fool’s gold. GBTI slashes mortgages this week, Republic Bank uncaps to $60 million at five percent, New Building Society trumpets “best rates in the industry.” In a nation wired for homeownership dreams—$159.1 billion in Budget 2026, 15,000 house lots, 8,000 homes—it’s sold as the great democratization.


It is not.
The Unspoken Threshold
Here is the question no bank answers: What salary gets you through the door? GBTI offers 25-year terms for low-income loans up to $30 million—no minimum wage disclosed. Republic demands payslips, NIS statements, sale agreements—still silent on the payslip’s number. NBS advertises rates, not reality. This opacity is no accident. Publish the thresholds, and the dream shatters.


Arithmetic unmasks it. Average gross monthly salary: GYD 100,000. Median: GYD 50,000. Private minimum: GYD 60,147—40% of Georgetown basics. A $30 million loan at 3.5% over 25 years? GYD 150,000 monthly. Banks cap payments at 30-40% of income. Qualifying wage: GYD 375,000 to 500,000. Three to five times the average. Seven times minimum. For 90% of workers, $30 million is theory, not tenure.[paylab +1]
Savings dazzle the elite: From 5% to 3%, monthly drops GYD 33,200 on $30 million—over GYD 10 million lifetime interest spared. But if you earn GYD 60,000? You’re invisible.


Supply Without Subsidy
Ceilings rise—supply expands. Repayments don’t shrink. No income bridge for the poor. Contrast: 50,000+ house lots since 2020—90% low-income, 47% single women, 54% youth under 35. Tiered, targeted. State-backed homes demand just GYD 100,000 contribution. Mortgages need that model: income-tested subsidies. Caribbean neighbors taper state-paid interest gaps—borrower gets 3%, Treasury tops up. Guyana lags.


Liquidity or Laundering?
Why the rush? Economy swims in liquidity—31% reserves-to-assets. Oil billions idle; banks funnel into “safe” mortgages. Marketing teases masses, underwriting gates the few. Debt trap? No—rejections protect. Laundering? Unlikely; deposits cycle legitimately. But opacity breeds suspicion. Where’s the data on low-wage approvals?


Demand Transparency Now
Bank of Guyana, Ministry of Finance: Mandate disclosure. Minimum net income per tier. Debt-to-income ratios. Approval rates below median wage. Not trade secrets—family rights.


Three percent for the top tenth isn’t progress. It’s a headline. Homeownership demands arithmetic for all, not illusions for some. Guyana’s families deserve doors flung open, not thresholds in the shadows.

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

“Country First, Not Clause First: Ali’s ‘Sanctity of Contract’ Excuse Falls Flat Next to Real Leaders”

/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The real test of leadership is not how smoothly you manage powerful interests, but how visibly you wrestle them for the people. When President Irfaan Ali shrinks from any serious renegotiation of the Exxon contract and hides behind “sanctity of contract” and “unimaginable legal hurdles,” he is not just defending legal technicalities—he is surrendering Guyana’s bargaining power while the fields pour billions offshore.


Contrast that with leaders who act as if the nation’s interests are non‑negotiable. John F. Kennedy’s famous line—“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”—was not just a slogan; it framed a president prepared to confront the Pentagon, the CIA, and Wall Street when he believed they were putting their interests ahead of the people. Kennedy’s Cuba missile crisis stand was not a “safe” move; it was a risk taken in the name of national sovereignty and security.


Then look at Delcy Rodríguez sitting in The Hague, facing down an international tribunal over Venezuela’s Essequibo claims. Whatever the outcome, that image—the image of a national leader in the dock, tethered to her people’s cause—sends a single, unmistakable message: “I am here because of you, not because of investors”. The symbolism alone is a weapon: it tells Venezuelans she is willing to bear the legal and political cost of defending territory they see as theirs.


Compare that to Volodymyr Zelenskyy appearing in battle‑fatigues, refusing to flee Kyiv and insisting he will be last to leave the capital under attack. Zelenskyy’s clothes are not theatrics; they are a visual declaration that the president shares the risk with his people, not the comfort of the boardroom or the embassy.


Ali, in contrast, appears in Houston positioning himself not as a tribune of Guyanese citizens, but as Exxon and Chevron’s diplomatic facilitator. He talks about “managing by results” while preserving a contract that critics say handcuffs the state,cedes control of fiscal terms, and lets oil companies recover up to 75% of investments before Guyana gets a sliver of the remaining 25%. He is not going to The Hague for his people; he is going to OTC to tell the world that Exxon’s comfort comes first.


Any government can drift along with a poor deal. What distinguishes a real leader from a caretaker is whether they are willing to pick the fight, to test the limits of the contract, to renegotiate, to litigate, or to at least publicly expose the inequity of the terms. Ali’s refusal to seriously challenge Exxon—even while acknowledging that future contracts will have better terms—tells Guyanese that for him, “country first” stops at the edge of the PSA.


So let the record be clear: Kennedy rode the risk, Rodríguez stands in the dock, Zelenskyy stands in the war zone. Ali? He stands in the shadow of Exxon, protecting their sanctuary while quietly asking Guyanese to accept a second‑class deal. That is not leadership; that is landlord politics with a presidential smile.

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