Jagdeo’s PPP-PNC sensation, WIN, raw realities -Pt I

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Jagdeo’s PPP-PNC sensation, WIN, raw realities -Pt I

OPINION BY : GHK LALL October 2026

PPP General Secretary, Cde Bharrat Jagdeo, showed again that he is one step ahead of the crowd.  A PPP-PNC Xmas card.  A neat package of joy.  Has the potential to give hope, generate inspiration.  Maybe even heal some long-festering national wounds.  On the surface, what Dr. Jagdeo laid on the table has much to recommend it. Condition: If it is the real deal.

The question for Guyanese is three-pronged:  window-dressing, powerbroking, or salvaging ops?  Two of the latter: one to bailout the PPP, the second to take the PNC from life support.  Relative to window-dressing and powerbroking, I interpret Jagdeo using the PNC as a foil to thwart Mr. Mohamed and WIN.  (And to save the PPP and PNC in the exercise).

Speaking positively, with generous grains of hope embedded, a PPP-PNC Alliance dilutes, if only temporarily, what has been a bone-in-throat for Guyanese.  The race factor.  Dilutes not eradicates.  For who in each side of that alliance will see, or will be whipped into a frenzy to stereotype, the other as a blood enemy?  The people who make up the respective traditional bases.  It will sure be an uneasy alliance, if were to gain some legs.  But what choice does the PNC have?  It is on the rocks.  Its prospects look grim, and are grim.  The chief local referee, America, is unhappy (but still accepting) of the status quo.  A PPP status quo, with American interests being the main driver.  Dr. Jagdeo extended his hand and, irony of ironies, it has a disguised palm branch.  An olive one.

Frankly, it’s a no-brainer for the PNC.  A free ride on Jagdeo’s coattails; plus, the circumventing and neutralizing of the Mohamed factor.  Mr. Mohamed has made his inroads.  He has made his presence and contributions felt at a grassroots level.  But, unless there are radical shifts in his mindset, he is a one-wheel chariot (Pt II planned).  Four years represent an eternity; the U.S. is determined to seize him and scan his head; and the people can be fickle.  However, the helpful element is that the Guyanese people find themselves in the worst of places in the best of times (Pt III revealed).  There’s a gamechanger brewing, probably in waiting.

Dr. Jagdeo knows all too well of the PPP’s atrocities with the people’s patrimony.  National development priorities, Dr. Singh’s magnum opus, has left huge segments of what’s national in tatters and hungrier. What he sells as capital development has left human development at the bottom.  And, the priorities of this man of book learning are what has pushed Guyanese to rummage for food, as though this country has no abundance of natural resources. 

Most of all, the hungry man, the distressed mother, questions whether oil has been found.  If so, then why so with their conditions?

Now think of this.  One year after a resounding electoral victory, another record budget, and another cash grant, I believe that an entity as canny as the PPP would have conducted its own secret poll.  What the people say?  Where are they?  How do they see the PPP?  How does WIN feature?  To repeat a prior assertion: Jagdeo does nothing for nothing.  Or, anything that Politico Jagdeo does has something in it for him.  He is not into charity or magnanimity.  Callous one day, lavish 24 hours later.  In sum, Jagdeo isn’t happy with where the PPP is, and there is the PNC on the ropes, and poised to go down, then out.  The video and audio that Politico Jagdeo presented is revealing.  Seen and heard before, and this is the plot.

Bharrat Jagdeo-whether in the role of president, vice president, or party general secretary-has assigned himself the role of the man with the white hat on the white horse.  The program titled an Evening with Robert Corbin was the stage where he acted out that role, displayed his goods. 

His inspiration, his vision: to avoid extinction.  The environment must be that crushing, with warning indicators flashing.  He extended a hand, with a threat palmed.  The PNC just got an offer it can’t refuse.  Next up: danger man Azruddin Mohamed.

 

World-Class Tomfoolery: Another Powership, Another Bill, Still No Accountability

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

  World-Class Tomfoolery: Another Powership, Another Bill, Still No Accountability

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Guyana was promised an energy transformation. Now, with Christmas approaching, the public is being prepared for another floating rescue. Not the promised electricity from Wales. Not the dependable service that should accompany the government’s grand development narrative. Another power-ship—and another set of financial obligations that taxpayers deserve to see before they are asked to celebrate.

Kaieteur News reports that Lindsayca has privately advised the government that it cannot deliver electricity from the Gas-to-Energy project by Christmas. The newspaper also reports negotiations for a larger Turkish power-ship, expected to replace the two vessels already serving Guyana, and a contractor request for an additional US$120 million to US$170 million. These are serious, source-based allegations, not yet established facts about an approved payment or a completed agreement. But they demand an immediate, documented response—not another performance at a microphone.

The central question is no longer whether the government can find another supplier willing to sell Guyana electricity.

It is whether anyone in this administration will be held responsible for the distance between what was promised, what was planned and what the public is now being asked to finance.

First It Was the Grid. Now It Is Another Ship.

Guyanese have good reason to remember the explanation they were given.

In a September 18 report, the Guyana Chronicle quoted Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation Deodat Indar saying: “The problem is the grid, the amount of power that goes through the transmission lines is starting to exceed the design capacity of those lines.” The same report said GPL attributed blackouts largely to an overloaded distribution network rather than a shortage of generation, while maintaining that overall generating capacity was available.

Now the public is reading about an urgent search for another floating power plant, against a background of inadequate reserves and generators requiring maintenance. Kaieteur News reports that President Ali acknowledged there was no spinning reserve left on the grid.

These explanations are not necessarily technically incompatible. Indeed, the September Chronicle report itself described both overloaded networks and insufficient flexibility to remove generating units for maintenance. The problem is the selective reassurance: telling people that generating capacity is available does not answer whether enough dependable capacity remains when equipment needs servicing or fails.

That distinction matters.

If Guyana has both a network bottleneck and a generation-reserve problem, the government owes the country one coherent account of both. It cannot foreground one weakness when defending its record, then invoke another when seeking money for the next emergency.

Nor does another ship answer the question raised by the minister’s own explanation: how will additional electricity reach consumers through infrastructure already described as overloaded?

The public deserves an integrated plan, not explanations delivered in instalments.

A Request Is Not an Entitlement

The additional-money issue cannot be dismissed as mere opposition speculation.

On September 18, the government’s own Department of Public Information reported President Ali acknowledging: “I know that there has been a request for additional resources.” He said the request had not been discussed. That official account also reiterated the commitment to first power by the end of December, with full 300-megawatt capacity expected in 2027.

The October 25 report now puts the alleged additional request at US$120 million to US$170 million and says the December delivery is in jeopardy. The amount and the claimed inability to deliver remain matters requiring confirmation from the government and Lindsayca.

But the principle should already be settled: a contractor’s request for more money is not a public obligation merely because it has been submitted.

Before any additional payment is approved, the government should disclose:

  • What contractual provision supports the request?
  • Which costs arise from changes instructed by the government, and which arise from the contractor’s own performance?
  • What work has been independently certified?
  • What remedies exist for missed milestones, and have they been exercised?
  • What additional guarantees would protect Guyana if more money were advanced?

These are not hostile questions. They are the minimum questions a government should ask when spending money that belongs to other people.

A project cannot be treated as a national triumph when promises are announced and as an unavoidable technical difficulty when the bill increases.

An Ambassador Is Not a Performance Guarantee

Kaieteur News places the reported financial request alongside US Ambassador Nicole Theriot’s public defense of the contractor. That political backdrop deserves scrutiny, but it does not establish that the ambassador has compelled an additional payment or improperly extracted money from Guyana.

The stronger indictment is simpler: no ambassador’s endorsement can substitute for contractual performance.

Diplomatic confidence is not an engineering certificate. A public expression of support is not proof that a milestone has been achieved. The nationality of a contractor does not relieve Guyana’s government of its duty to test claims, enforce terms and protect the public purse.

If Washington wishes to express confidence in an American-linked project, that is its position to defend. President Ali’s responsibility is to defend Guyana’s interests.

Friendship must not become a reason to soften scrutiny. Nor should diplomatic prestige become protective wrapping around an invoice.

The Emergency Must Not Become the Business Model

There may be a legitimate operational case for additional temporary generation. Keeping homes, hospitals and businesses supplied with electricity matters more than preserving anyone’s political pride.

But necessity does not erase accountability.

According to Kaieteur News, the larger vessel would replace the existing two ships, and the proposed arrangement could involve a multi-year commitment. It should therefore not be casually presented as three ships operating together, nor should its total cost be guessed before the contract is disclosed.

What must be demanded is the complete financial picture:

  • The contracted capacity and the electricity GPL must purchase.
  • The duration of the agreement and any minimum-payment obligations.
  • Responsibility for fuel and other operating costs.
  • Any overlap with payments under the existing arrangements.
  • Termination rights if Gas-to-Energy begins supplying power.
  • The procurement process and the legal basis for selecting the supplier.

A lower advertised rate would not, by itself, answer whether the overall commitment represents value for money. The duration, purchase obligations and exit terms matter too.

The government should publish those terms before presenting another emergency arrangement as a negotiating masterstroke.

Otherwise, the country risks being asked to applaud the price of the rescue without being told the cost of needing rescue again.

Oil Wealth Is Not a Substitute for Competence

The public’s anger about the Natural Resource Fund is understandable. But the available report does not establish that a specific NRF withdrawal has financed this proposed vessel or any additional Lindsayca payment. That connection should not be asserted without the financial records.

The accountability question remains powerful without inventing a transaction: what is the full budgetary cost of these overlapping energy commitments, and where will the money come from?

Oil wealth should give Guyana greater room to plan. It should not give its government greater room to improvise.

Every additional dollar committed to rescuing an energy timetable is a dollar that must be justified against other public needs. The fact that the Treasury may be able to find the money does not establish that the expenditure was unavoidable, properly negotiated or fairly allocated between taxpayers and contractors.

A growing economy needs a power system planned for growth. The government cannot celebrate expansion as evidence of its foresight and then invoke that same expansion as though it were an unforeseeable event.

Put the Documents on the Table

President Ali, Minister Indar and GPL should now provide a single public accounting.

Has Lindsayca formally revised its December commitment? What is the independently verified completion schedule? What additional resources have been requested, on what grounds, and with what recommendation from the government’s technical and legal advisers?

Has another power-ship agreement been signed? What will it cost? When do the existing arrangements end? What happens financially if the Wales plant begins supplying electricity while the new agreement remains in force?

And who accepted responsibility for ensuring that generation, maintenance, transmission and distribution were ready together?

The answer cannot be that everyone was working hard. Effort is not the contractual deliverable. Speeches are not reserve capacity. Announcements do not keep a refrigerator running.

This is a demand for accountability, not an argument for leaving the country in darkness.

If another vessel is genuinely necessary, explain the necessity and disclose the terms. If the contractor has missed its obligations, identify the breach and enforce the contract. If government decisions contributed to the delay, acknowledge them instead of transferring every consequence to the public.

The phrase “world-class tomfoolery” fits the spectacle—not because every reported allegation has already been proved, but because the public is being asked to reconcile confident promises with another reported emergency purchase.

The Christmas lights may yet come on. That will not, by itself, mean the government has delivered good governance. It may mean only that Guyana has paid again to postpone the reckoning.

 

Part I: Guyana Cannot Sign Away Its Future in Secret

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Part I: Guyana Cannot Sign Away Its Future in Secret

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

Ali Says Guyana Is Not Being Controlled—Then Let the Country See the Deal

President Irfaan Ali now says the United States is not bullying or controlling Guyana. He says Guyana approaches Washington as a sovereign partner, pursuing shared development, security, regional prosperity and mutual benefit. If that is so, there should be no hesitation in publishing the full terms of the new Guyana–United States defense arrangement.

This is not an argument against cooperation with the United States. Guyana faces real dangers: Venezuela’s unlawful claim to the Essequibo, cross-border insecurity, narcotrafficking, maritime vulnerabilities and the need to build the capacity of the Guyana Defense Force. Guyana is entitled to seek training, intelligence cooperation, equipment, joint exercises and credible partners.

But cooperation between states cannot mean secrecy from the people.

The issue is not whether Guyana should have a security relationship with the United States. The issue is whether the Ali administration has signed, discussed or initiated commitments whose full implications are being withheld from Guyana’s citizens and their elected representatives.

A Declaration Without Disclosure

The country has been told that President Ali and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a Joint Declaration for an Enhanced Defense Partnership at the Pentagon. The public descriptions speak of security cooperation, military expertise, training, exercises, air-domain awareness and action against narcotrafficking.

Yet the document itself has not been made public.

Guyanese do not know the declaration’s precise legal status. They do not know whether it is merely a political statement of intent, a legally binding instrument, or a framework followed by annexes, side letters, memoranda or implementation arrangements that carry actual obligations.

They do not know its duration. They do not know the cost. They do not know its termination provisions. They do not know what facilities, data, personnel, equipment, access rights, operational commitments or financial obligations may be involved.

That is unacceptable for an agreement presented as a landmark advancement in Guyana’s security relationship with the world’s most powerful military force.

The Government must not ask the public to celebrate an agreement it has not been allowed to read.

Ali’s Own Admission

In his CNN interview, President Ali sought to reassure Guyanese that the United States is not seeking to dominate Guyana. He said Guyana sees Washington as a partner in development and security, guided by shared values and mutual benefit.

But he also conceded that he cannot speak for America’s agenda in its relations with Guyana or other countries. That is the point.

No Guyanese President can speak for Washington’s interests. The United States will pursue its own strategic, commercial, military and geopolitical objectives. That is what powerful states do. Guyana’s responsibility is therefore not to rely on broad assurances of friendship, but to ensure that every engagement is governed by transparent, enforceable and publicly accountable terms.

If the President cannot speak for America’s agenda, then Guyanese must be allowed to examine the terms under which their own government has agreed to cooperate with America.

Sovereignty does not mean repeating that Guyana is sovereign. Sovereignty means retaining the capacity to make independent choices, setting national red lines, preserving control over territory and resources, and ensuring that foreign agreements are not negotiated beyond the view of the people.

Mutuality Must Be Shown

Ali insists that Guyana is entering the relationship on the basis of partnership, mutuality and joint development. Those are welcome words. But mutuality must be demonstrated in the document—not merely declared at a press conference or in a television interview.

What has Guyana agreed to give? What has the United States agreed to provide?

Will U.S. personnel receive access to Guyanese bases, airstrips, ports, maritime zones, communications systems, intelligence networks or training facilities? Will there be rotational deployments, equipment storage, surveillance activity, intelligence-sharing operations, private military contractors or special procurement arrangements?

Will Guyana assume long-term financial obligations? Are there immunity or jurisdiction provisions for foreign military personnel? Will Guyana’s future governments be free to amend, review or terminate the arrangement?

These are not anti-American questions. They are pro-Guyana questions.

A government that believes an agreement serves the national interest should welcome those questions. It should answer them before the arrangement becomes an established fact beyond public challenge.

Critical Minerals Cannot Be Ignored

The public statements surrounding the Pentagon engagement raised another serious issue: Guyana’s pursuit of a memorandum of understanding with the United States on critical minerals.

This cannot be treated as a minor footnote.

Washington’s interest in critical minerals is strategic. Around the world, major powers are seeking secure supplies of minerals needed for defence systems, advanced manufacturing, energy technologies, communications infrastructure and industrial supply chains. Guyana, with its expanding extractive economy, strategic location and largely underexplored mineral potential, will inevitably attract the attention of governments, investors and corporations seeking long-term access.

The public deserves to know whether Guyana’s security relationship and its critical-minerals discussions are separate, connected or moving in parallel.

Has Guyana discussed geological data, mineral mapping, exploration areas, mining licenses, investment preferences, offtake arrangements, strategic stockpiles, processing facilities, ports, roads, airfields or supply corridors with U.S. officials?

Has any American entity been promised preferential treatment, direct access, first-refusal rights, tax concessions, investment guarantees or special operating privileges?

If the answer is no, say so clearly.

If a critical-minerals memorandum is being negotiated, publish the negotiating mandate, identify the agencies involved, state its objectives and commit to tabling the final document before the National Assembly.

Guyana has already learned too painfully that resource agreements negotiated without adequate transparency can become national burdens for generations.

Security Is Not a Blank Cheque

Venezuela’s threat to Guyana is real. It is serious. It requires seriousness from every national institution.

But a national-security challenge must not become the excuse for obscuring commitments that could affect Guyana’s sovereignty, strategic assets and economic future. Indeed, a country under external pressure needs more transparency—not less—because its vulnerability may reduce its bargaining power.

No one should expect Guyana to face Venezuela’s aggression alone. Guyana needs friends, alliances, training and credible international support. But friendship is not the same as submission, and partnership is not the same as surrendering control over national choices. A security arrangement must strengthen Guyana’s capacity to defend itself. It must not quietly create obligations that weaken Guyana’s freedom to decide who accesses its resources, infrastructure, intelligence, land, airspace or waters.

That is why the details matter.

Parliament Must Not Be Kept Outside

It is deeply troubling that Guyanese learned of the Pentagon engagement through public statements after the fact. There was no public explanation beforehand of the President’s mandate, the intended agreement, its scope or the commitments under consideration.

The National Assembly was not publicly given an opportunity to scrutinize the arrangement before it was announced. Guyanese have not been told whether Cabinet reviewed and approved the document, whether the Attorney General’s Chambers vetted it, or whether the Guyana Defense Force and Ministry of Foreign Affairs participated in negotiating its terms.

The legislature cannot be reduced to an afterthought.

An agreement with possible implications for national defense, foreign policy, public spending, territorial access, military cooperation, intelligence, infrastructure and strategic resources must receive parliamentary attention. If the Government insists that sensitive details cannot be publicly disclosed, it should still provide the principal agreement to the public and establish a confidential process through which elected representatives can examine legitimate operational material.

National security may justify protecting tactics. It does not justify concealing the existence, scope, duration and consequences of national commitments.

Release the Agreement

President Ali has made his position clear: Guyana is not being bullied; Guyana is not being controlled; Guyana is a sovereign state acting as a partner.

The test of those assurances is simple.

Publish the Joint Declaration for an Enhanced Defense Partnership.

Publish all annexes, memoranda, implementation schedules, financing arrangements and side letters connected to it. State whether the agreement is binding. State how long it lasts. State how it may be amended or terminated. State whether it gives the United States, U.S. contractors or U.S. companies any access, preference or rights connected to Guyana’s defence facilities, strategic infrastructure, resource data or critical minerals.

Then table the arrangement in the National Assembly.

If it truly advances Guyana’s sovereignty, security and development, its terms should survive public examination. If it cannot be shown to Parliament and the people, then Guyanese are entitled to ask what exactly has been agreed—and in whose interest.

 

Clode’s Uranium Assurances Leave Out the Most Important Facts

/0 Comments/in , , /by

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Clode’s Uranium Assurances Leave Out the Most Important Facts

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

U92 Energy’s CEO, Adam Clode, says it would be “very strange” for Guyana to refuse uranium exploration at Kurupung. But his public defence of the project leaves out the central fact already recorded in his company’s own regulatory paperwork: approximately 88,000 metres—almost 55 miles—of historic drill core has been sitting at the project site, moved repeatedly from its original covered storage, with part of it identified as “unsorted historic drill core.”

That omission is not minor. It goes to the credibility of every assurance now being offered about “minimal” impact, reversible disturbance, manageable radiation and a project supposedly too routine to warrant deeper independent scrutiny.

The question Guyana must ask is not whether uranium has been explored in Canada, Australia or Central Asia. The question is whether U92 has told Guyanese people the whole truth about conditions at Kurupung—and whether its claims have been independently tested.

The fact he left out

In the Project Summary for Environmental Authorization prepared for LIA (Guyana) Inc. in March 2026, the company’s own consultant recorded that 88,000 meters of drill core from past work remained on site near the Aricheng airstrip. The same document stated that the core had been moved several times from original covered storage areas and “needs to be moved to a safer, adequate facility.”

The company’s own aerial image reportedly identifies a “Temporary drill core-sorting pad” and an area of “Unsorted historic drill core.”

That is the equivalent of almost 55 miles of historic core—an extraordinary quantity of material associated with decades of uranium exploration—stored at a site the company itself acknowledges requires a safer and more adequate facility. This corresponds strikingly with the Amerindian Peoples Association’s reported concern about some 55 miles of core at Kurupung.

Yet in a lengthy public discussion about radiation, environmental controls, reversibility and public fears, Clode did not confront this issue directly. He did not say when U92 discovered the condition of the historic core. He did not say whether the safer facility has been completed. He did not say what independent radiological monitoring has been done around the temporary storage site. He did not say whether nearby communities have seen the results.

Those are not side issues. They are the issues.

“Minimal impact” is not an answer

Clode seeks to reduce the environmental question to the physical footprint of a drill pad: create a pad, drill a hole, cap it, revegetate the area. But this is an incomplete account of uranium exploration.

The public is entitled to ask about:

◊ The handling, cutting, sorting and storage of uranium-bearing core.

◊ The condition of historic material accumulated through prior exploration campaigns.

◊ Whether core boxes, storage areas and sorting locations are protected from weather, erosion, runoff and unauthorized access.

◊ Whether radioactive minerals, dust or radon are being monitored.

◊ Whether nearby watercourses, soils, sediments and vegetation have been tested.

◊ Whether workers, contractors and persons from surrounding communities can be assured that exposure pathways have been identified and controlled.

◊ Whether historic exploration has left conditions that must be remedied before another drilling campaign proceeds.

A drill pad may be rehabilitated. That does not automatically resolve what remains above ground, what has been repeatedly moved, what may have been stored in temporary conditions, or what may be affecting the surrounding environment.

The chest X-ray comparison

The chest X-ray analogy deserves particular scrutiny.

A chest X-ray is a controlled medical procedure, undertaken with calibrated equipment, known parameters, professional supervision and a defined duration. It is not a substitute for site-specific evidence about a uranium exploration property.

It does not answer:

◊ What radionuclides are present in the core and surrounding material.

◊ What radiation readings have been taken at the historic storage locations.

◊ Whether radon, gamma radiation, dust or other exposure routes have been assessed.

◊ What baseline testing was completed before U92 began preparing its program.

◊ Whether water testing has been conducted upstream and downstream of core-storage and drill areas.

◊ Whether readings were taken by an independent qualified laboratory.

◊ Whether the results have been supplied to the EPA, affected communities and the public.

No corporate executive should be allowed to substitute a broad comparison for actual measurements from the site in question.

If U92 has the tests, it should publish them. If the tests do not exist, then Clode’s confident statements about negligible risk were not grounded in independently verifiable evidence.

A future storage plan is not present safety

The March document’s description of a proposed storage facility is revealing. It reportedly describes a site to be cleared and compacted, a partially roofed structure, palletized core boxes and a ventilated unit for core cutting. But that description was written in the future tense.

The obvious conclusion is not that U92 has admitted a radiation release or proven community exposure. No responsible publication should make such a claim without testing and scientific evidence.

The conclusion is simpler and more serious: the company’s own submission establishes that the storage arrangement then in place was not considered adequate and that a safer facility was still contemplated.

That should have been central to Clode’s interview. It was not.

Instead, he asked Guyanese people to accept that nothing significant was at stake, that exploration was minor, that concerns could be cured by information-sharing, and that denial of drilling would be “strange.” That is not transparency. It is a selective presentation of the record.

The missing evidence

The issue is not whether U92 says its employees will wear dosimeters. The issue is whether the public can verify the company’s statements through independent records.

The public should now demand immediate disclosure of:

◊ A complete inventory of all historic core at Kurupung, including the quantity, location, condition and ownership of each core stockpile.

◊ The date on which U92 or LIA first determined that the historic storage arrangement was inadequate.

◊ Confirmation of whether the 88,000 meters of core has been moved to the safer facility proposed in March 2026.

◊ The design, construction status, inspection record and security arrangements for that facility.

◊ Radiological survey results for the historic core, temporary sorting pad, prior storage sites, core-cutting areas, access routes, soils, surface water, sediment and groundwater.

◊ Results of any testing for gamma radiation, radon, uranium and associated radioactive elements.

◊ The names of the laboratories used, analytical methods, detection limits and quality-assurance procedures.

◊ Worker monitoring results, including the dose-monitoring protocol and the independent body responsible for review.

◊ EPA inspection reports, permit conditions, compliance reports and enforcement records.

◊ A clear public explanation of how nearby communities were notified and what information they were given.

Without these records, phrases such as “well understood,” “minimal,” “reversible” and “safe” remain corporate assertions—not established facts.

The community issue cannot be waved away

Clode reportedly says there are no inhabitants inside the license area, while acknowledging communities exist to the north, east and south. That is not a complete answer.

People do not need to live within a license boundary to be stakeholders. Rivers, rainfall, wildlife, forests, hunting grounds, fishing areas, trails, air movement and customary relationships to land are not confined by company coordinates.

The relevant question is whether communities were told, in clear terms, that a large historic inventory of uranium exploration core existed nearby; whether they were informed that it had been repeatedly moved; whether they were told the company regarded existing arrangements as requiring a safer facility; and whether they had access to independent technical advice before environmental decisions were taken.

The claim that some residents previously worked at the property does not establish informed consultation. Employment is not disclosure. Proximity is not participation. Silence is not consent.

Guyana must not be rushed

The company’s commercial interests are obvious. U92 has acquired control of the project, secured historic data, advanced plans for drilling and must satisfy investors who expect the company to turn a historical uranium estimate into a more valuable current resource.

That commercial urgency is exactly why Guyana’s regulators must be independent, demanding and transparent. The country cannot allow corporate timetables, investor expectations or agreements concerning prospective output to become a substitute for public-interest safeguards.

Guyana is not obligated to prohibit uranium exploration. But it is under no obligation to accept a uranium project on the strength of a CEO’s assurances—particularly where the company’s own documents identify an unresolved historic core-storage problem.

The question Clode must answer

Clode says a refusal to allow drilling would be “very strange.” The stranger proposition is this: that Guyana should approve a new uranium exploration campaign without first establishing, through independent testing, what condition 88,000 meters of historic core is in, what radiation levels exist at and around the storage areas, what exposure pathways have been assessed, whether communities were properly informed, and whether the “safer, adequate facility” the company itself described has actually been built.

Until those answers are provided, independently verified and made public, the reasonable response is not blind acceptance. It is scrutiny.

Mr. President, Welcome Back to Earth

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

  Mr. President, Welcome Back to Earth

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

Washington’s “50-50” language is flattering. Guyana’s sovereignty requires a harder test than diplomatic reassurance.

President Irfaan Ali says the United States is not bullying Guyana. American Ambassador Nicole Theriot describes the relationship as “50-50,” a partnership without dominance. Then comes a report of an American Airlines flight returning to Miami, with the President reportedly aboard, offering a rather less ceremonial reminder of how the world works.

In Washington, a visiting president can receive the courtesies of high office. On CNN, he can explain his country’s place in the international order. An ambassador can describe him as the representative of an equal partner.

But aboard a commercial aircraft, presidential prestige does not determine whether the journey continues. Operational authority rests elsewhere. If the flight turns back, the President turns back with everybody else.

Radar tracking of AA flight path

That is not an insult to Guyana. Nor does a diverted aircraft establish that Washington controls Georgetown. It is, however, a useful antidote to the confusion between being recognized, being courted and possessing equal power.

Mr. President, welcome back to earth.

The question that diplomatic language did not settle

In  Pres. Ali’s CNN interview, Jim Sciutto asked whether the United States was a fair partner in helping to negotiate Guyana’s oil arrangements.

Ali’s response moved toward the breadth of Guyana’s relationships: its excellent relations with Washington, shared values and priorities, and the participation of ExxonMobil, Chevron and CNOOC in the country’s petroleum sector. He also pointed to wider international interest in exploration.

Those observations may describe the investment landscape. They do not settle whether the underlying bargain is fair.

The presence of several foreign companies does not, by itself, establish that Guyana has negotiated from strength. Diversity of investors and fairness of contractual terms are different questions.

Sciutto then pressed the larger issue: whether the United States under Donald Trump sought partnership or control.

“I don’t see the US as trying to force us or trying to be a dominant force with Guyana,” Ali responded, according to the public report.

Yet when the discussion turned to whether both countries approached the relationship through the same mutually beneficial understanding, the President supplied the qualification that deserves the closest attention:

“I can speak for Guyana.”

Precisely. Ali can state his government’s intentions. He cannot certify Washington’s intentions merely by describing his own. That distinction is not a minor qualification buried inside an otherwise reassuring interview. It is the central limitation of the reassurance.

“50-50” is a description, not an audit

Ambassador Theriot subsequently supplied an even more emphatic formulation.

“It’s a partnership. It’s 50-50. Absolutely, there is no dominance,” she told News Room, according to the published release. The ambassador is entitled to explain her government’s position. But an ambassador’s endorsement is not independent verification of the relationship she represents.

Nor should the phrase “50-50” escape examination simply because it sounds generous. Fifty-fifty in what?

Respect for each country’s sovereignty? Participation in particular decisions? Distribution of economic gains? Ability to refuse a request? Influence over the terms of security cooperation?

These are not interchangeable measures.

Two countries can recognize each other as sovereign equals without possessing equal economic resources, negotiating leverage or freedom from dependence. Diplomatic equality does not erase disparities in power.

The ambassador’s remarks also should not be confused with a claim that Guyana’s oil contract divides all benefits equally. She was describing the bilateral relationship, not presenting an accounting of petroleum revenues.

That makes the appropriate response neither applause nor outrage. It makes it scrutiny.

Equality must be tested in the decisions that follow the photograph, not simply proclaimed at the microphone.

The oil agreement is a more serious test

The News Room account reports that Ali acknowledged that the Stabroek production-sharing agreement might not represent the best deal Guyana could have secured. It also reports his commitment to respecting the existing contract while increasing the benefits available to Guyanese.

Here lies the more consequential issue.

A government cannot answer every question about the quality of an agreement by explaining who signed it. The previous APNU+AFC administration’s responsibility for the agreement is relevant. So is the present administration’s responsibility for the decisions it now makes.

Respecting an existing contract is a policy position. It is not, by itself, proof that every available avenue for improving the public interest has been exhausted.

Likewise, expanding local business participation and proposing investment opportunities for citizens may deserve examination on their merits. But those initiatives do not answer every question about the underlying petroleum bargain.

Participation in the economy surrounding an agreement is not the same thing as securing the strongest possible terms within the agreement itself.

The President should therefore welcome a more demanding standard: demonstrate what Guyana receives, explain what it concedes, disclose how decisions are reached, and defend the balance in terms citizens can examine. That would tell us more about partnership than another declaration that relations are excellent.

Then came the aircraft

Online media outfit-Browny Times places the President aboard an American Airlines flight reportedly forced to return to Miami following a passenger confrontation.

The account is satirical, deliberately abrasive—and backed by photographic evidence of President Ali’s presence on board. Its political metaphor is clear: Guyana’s international star, presented as an equal partner of the United States, is subjected to the same uncompromising conditions as everyone else on the flight. No special treatment. No exemption for status.

If the account as reported is accurate, the President experienced an inconvenience that neither his title nor his international visibility could remove. He was a passenger on a service whose immediate operation he did not control.

No presidential declaration could turn that commercial aircraft into a sovereign command post.

There is nothing shameful about that. A president travelling commercially is not diminished merely because he shares an ordinary disruption with ordinary people.

Indeed, the most useful lesson is not that Ali lacked a presidential aircraft. Possessing one would not establish that Guyana had achieved equality of power with the United States.

The lesson is simpler: status does not confer control over every institution one enters.

A seat at the table does not mean ownership of the table. A warm reception does not mean command of the agenda. Access to powerful people does not make their power one’s own.

The danger is mistaking personal elevation for national leverage

This is where the satire reaches beyond the aircraft.

A leader may become increasingly visible abroad while the public remains entitled to ask whether the country’s negotiating position has improved. Those developments are not necessarily the same.

The President’s international reception is not a substitute for evidence that Guyana can secure better outcomes, resist unwelcome demands and preserve its freedom of decision.

Nor should criticism of the relationship be dismissed as hostility toward the United States. Guyana can value American cooperation, investment and security support while asking difficult questions about their terms.

Partnership does not require political innocence. Gratitude does not require silence. Friendship does not suspend accountability.

 If the relationship is as balanced as its defenders insist, it should withstand public examination without its critics being treated as enemies of progress. The real test is not how warmly Washington says yes to Guyana. It is what happens when Guyana says no.

Georgetown’s soil is where the accounting belongs

Ali need not return home humbled by the mere fact that another country is more powerful. Guyana’s size is not a national failing, and its citizens do not need a politics of inferiority.

What they need is leadership that does not confuse personal prominence with public achievement.

The President’s task is not to persuade Guyanese that he has become an equal of the powerful through proximity. It is to demonstrate that his government can deal with the powerful without surrendering the public interest.

That requires more than confidence. It requires evidence, disclosure and a willingness to submit reassuring claims to uncomfortable tests.

The reported flight diversion does not prove that Guyana is being stepped on. But neither a CNN appearance nor an ambassador’s “50-50” assurance proves that it is not.

The question is whether Guyana’s resources and strategic importance are being converted into durable bargaining power—or whether others are securing their advantages while its government celebrates the attention.

That is the accounting Georgetown deserves.

Mr. President, the ceremony abroad may be impressive. The obligations at home remain. Plant your feet on Georgetown’s soil, put the agreements before the people, and show them where the equality resides.

Use every tool, asset, to be rid of undesirables

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

  Use every tool, asset, to be rid of undesirables

OPINION BY: GHK LALL October 2026

“Guyana” is one hell of a country.  This country under the PPP Govt must qualify to be in an extremely ugly category of hell.  I watch as a citizen is savaged repeatedly, and silence is the only sound that splits the air.  Silence, the bleats of fear.  Or cheap ambition.  Alongside that, there’s distance.  It’s somebody else’s business; they can fight.

 The PPP Govt knows where it has Guyanese.  And because of that, its leaders know that it can kick them around, violate any standards to bring them down, and few objections would be forthcoming.

The holder of a constitutional office is hounded, trailed, watched, cornered and trapped, branded and battered, squeezed and tumbled, and rare are any words of protest heard from Guyanese.  Many of those who long shared lofty phrases and long held larger-than-life positions on the sacredness of the Guyana Constitution, have all turned turtle or turned yellow.  The former is a defensive stance (making oneself small and harmless); the latter is the cowardly color of those who have compromised themselves in some way.  Or harbor high expectations for considerations from on high.  The moment that there is any kind of dependency on the PPP Govt, the dependent is as good as dead.  Dead to principles.  Dead to integrity.  Dead to personal honor.  What applies to individuals, also applies to groups. 

The tools and resources, the assets and institutions, of a country assembled, then unleashed in waves of attacks on those deemed parasites, undesirables, and misfits.  Maybe not fit to live.

A judge was isolated and his character assassinated recently.  He suddenly didn’t have a fraternity to call his own.  The object of a high-level orchestration, followed by widespread derision.  Not one voice.  Not one bold figure daring to break the silence (and emasculated ranks) and say: I stand.  I object.  I denigrate.  Even crapos croak when the times demand.  Once again, it’s the office and not the man.  The constitution treated like dirt; the judiciary prostituted.  Understand who’s master.  Respond properly to expectations, or else….  And, they call this vulgarity of a country, a democracy.  I want to say that many of those who assert so are first class frauds, and knaves and fools to boot.  I refrain.

One of the most blinding and alarming examples of the unbelievable in action in Guyana has to be what the Guyana Police Force has been converted to, the private security force that it has become.  Go there.  Strike hard.  No mercy.  No prisoners.  One man should consider himself lucky.  Before that, a touching up and glossing over was admitted to recently.  How many more of that kind happened?  So. it cannot be that far into the future before fixups and frameups are part of an ever-expanding range of Police crime solving techniques.  Perhaps, already here.  Just as casually as murder was given a pass in the past, so can those branded as offensive to the PPP Govt be setup for who knows what.  The case of the judge that made the headlines goes to show how far the PPP Govt can reach.  It confirms who it can make into allies (fall for its fabrications, and get something extra for it).

Guyanese have heard about how bad Burnham was for this country; the grip he had on the Guyana Police.  Compare then to now,; it’s putting chalk and cheese together in the same sandwich.  Lots of loud righteous horror over the bad days of the Burnham Police.  Did this country since develop an outbreak of national dumbness?

When the Guyana Police can be weaponized so thoroughly against a Constitutional officeholder, the odds are unbeatable for worse being inflicted upon ordinary citizens.  Similar to how an old, intimate, and trusted friend of the PPP Govt could be demonized and criminalized, so also can new friends now reached-for with an invitation that causes a heavy overflow of salivating.  Give it some time. 

When such are the circumstances, those who rhapsodize about democracy, the constitution, parliament, and law must be among the biggest hoaxers and hucksters seen over the years in this region.

Rooted, Not Trapped: Why Our Communities Must Become Their Own Republics

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Rooted, Not Trapped: Why Our Communities Must Become Their Own Republics

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

“Rooted”: An idea  is born to support Guyanese at home  from the diaspora “

“For  many watching Guyana’s future unfold, communal agricultural and commercial projects may be the tool ordinary people have long needed: a real chance to build, prosper and “fly” right here at home—without being forced to leave their land, their families or their hopes behind.”         “More than four  decades ago, I left Guyana for the United States. Like so many who have departed our shores, I did not leave because I stopped loving Guyana. I left because circumstances made the future difficult to see, and because opportunity seemed to exist somewhere beyond the horizon.”                                                                                             
“The United States gave me chances for which I remain grateful. It gave me room to work, to build, to learn, and to achieve things that may not have been possible had I remained at home. Yet after all these years, after every accomplishment and every lesson, after having realized what many deem the quintessential American dream, there remains a feeling that has never entirely left me: nostalgia”

There are moments when I wish I had never had to leave.

That feeling is not a rejection of the life I have built abroad. It is an acknowledgment of what migration costs. When we leave, we may carry our country with us, but we also leave behind family, friendships, familiar places, traditions, and a part of ourselves that no new passport, address, job, or achievement can replace.

That is why the story of Ismely Álvarez de Cubas and his  initiative, “Arraigados”—“Rooted”—resonates with me. His message is not that people must be prevented from leaving. It is not that those who migrate have failed their country, or that the countryside should be romanticized as a place where people must endure hardship in silence.

His  message, as I understand it, is that a person should be able to build a dignified life at home.

Conceived around these three strategic pillars 

The project operates as a supportive community framework built around : 

  •   Agricultural Training: Described by Ismely as the “DNA” of the project, education is used to cultivate both professional skills and personal growth.
  • Global Network Exchange: The project is designed to bridge geographical distances by connecting local Cuban farmers with professionals, business mentors, and peers in countries like Spain, Europe, Chile ,Brazil, and the United States. 
  • Two-Way Mentorship: International mentors offer technical expertise, resources, and business testimonies. In return, the exchange provides those coming from wealthier global contexts a perspective on human resilience and material realities in Cuba.
  • 3. Long-Term Vision

Rather than functioning as a standard top-down charity, Arraigados is modeled on faith, community cooperation, and shared human values. Ismely’s declared long-term target is to scale the initiative over the next decade into a self-sustaining global community unified by work, continuous training, and spiritual values. 

That should not be a radical idea. It should be the basic obligation of every country to its people.

We Must Stop Waiting

For too long, Guyanese and Caribbean people have been trained to think of national development as something that must come from above.

We wait for a government announcement. We wait for an investor. We wait for a grand project, a new road, a new contract, a foreign company, an election, a ministerial promise, or another speech about prosperity that never reaches the street, the village, the farm, or the household

We have become accustomed to looking at the national picture and measuring our hope by what takes place in Georgetown, Havana, Bridgetown, Port of Spain, or other capitals. But national plans have meaning only if they improve daily life in the communities where people live.

A nation is not an abstract map. It is a collection of communities.

It is the village, the ward, the housing scheme, the farming district, the riverine settlement, the market, the school, the local health centre, the church, the mosque, the mandir, the community ground, and the homes where parents wonder whether their children will have to leave to find a future.

If we want to keep our people rooted, then we must first make our communities places where people can see a future.

Every Community Is a Republic

My hope is that those at home begin to see the power of the communal setting first.

What we want is every village and community to start thinking of itself as its own republic—not separate from Guyana, not hostile to the State, and not detached from the national interest, but responsible for its own renewal.

A community republic is built on a simple idea: the people who live closest to the problems must become central to creating the solutions.

If a village lacks employment, its people should organize around the opportunities available: agriculture, agro-processing, fishing, small manufacturing, construction, tourism, crafts, transportation, technology, services, culture, or trade.

If young people are idle, the community must not simply condemn them. It must ask what skills, mentorship, training, work opportunities, sports programmes, arts initiatives, and entrepreneurial support can be created around them.

If farmers struggle, the community should explore shared machinery, buying groups, storage facilities, transportation arrangements, farmers’ markets, cooperative processing, and direct connections to consumers.

If roads, drainage, bridges, schools, clinics, or public spaces are neglected, the community must document the failures, organize its evidence, engage public officials, and demand answers with one united voice.

When people act separately, they are easily ignored. When they organize around a common purpose, they become a force.

Liberation Begins With Unity

Liberation does not begin only in Parliament, the Cabinet Office, or the boardroom of an oil company. It begins when ordinary people recognize that they have more power together than they do alone.

The most enduring progress rarely comes from one politician, one benefactor, or one foreign investor. It comes when a community decides that it will no longer wait passively for others to define its future.

That does not mean government has no responsibility. Government has an enormous responsibility. Citizens are entitled to competent public services, accountable institutions, fair laws, transparent spending, quality education, health care, infrastructure, security, and equal access to opportunity.

But while we demand these things—and we must demand them—we cannot surrender our own agency. We must not become spectators in our own country.

A community that unites can establish a development committee, map its assets, identify its most urgent needs, mentor its young people, support its elderly, form savings groups, create cooperatives, promote local enterprises, and establish clear priorities for government engagement

It can learn to ask better questions: Where is the money allocated for our area? Who received the contract? What was promised? What was delivered? Who is accountable? What is the timeline? Why are we being left behind?

These are not acts of rebellion. They are acts of citizenship.

Rootedness Needs Economic Dignity

Still, we must be realistic. Unity alone cannot feed a family, repair a tractor, bring electricity to a community, or make up for a failing health system. Communities can organize, but they cannot be asked to carry burdens that properly belong to the State.

To keep people rooted, there must be economic dignity.

Our farmers need land security, reliable drainage and irrigation, equipment, fuel, inputs, credit, storage, processing facilities, roads, and fair access to markets. Our fisherfolk need docks, cold storage, safety equipment, market access, and protection of marine resources. Our small businesses need affordable financing, stable electricity, digital connectivity, transparent licensing, and public procurement that does not favour only the politically connected.

Our young people need good schools, modern training, apprenticeships, access to technology, safe spaces, and a fair opportunity to start something of their own. They must be able to imagine a life at home that is not defined by dependence, political connections, or the next remittance from relatives overseas.

This is where projects like “Rooted” carry an important lesson. Training, values, environmental awareness, and practical support can help people recover confidence in their ability to build where they are. But training must lead somewhere. It must lead to the ability to produce, earn, save, invest, employ, and live with self-respect.

The Diaspora Must Be a Bridge

Those of us in the diaspora have a role beyond sending money home in emergencies.

We can share skills, mentor young people, connect local entrepreneurs with wider markets, help communities develop proposals, support scholarships, contribute equipment, and advocate for better governance. We can use our distance not to lecture those at home, but to create bridges between what we have learned abroad and what can be built at home.

But we must also remain humble.

People living in Guyana today understand the pressures they face better than anyone abroad can. They are the ones dealing with high prices, inadequate services, unemployment, crime, poor infrastructure, and the daily uncertainty that leads so many to consider migration. Our responsibility is to listen, support, connect, and amplify—not to impose.

The diaspora should not become a replacement for government. No country should depend indefinitely on the remittances and sacrifices of those it failed to retain. The diaspora can assist, but national development requires accountable leadership and policies that make productive life possible.

A Country Worth Choosing

I do not wish to tell anyone not to leave Guyana. Every person has the right to seek education, safety, work, and opportunity wherever they can find it. Migration has opened doors for many of us, and it has helped countless families survive.

But I want us to reach the day when Guyanese leave because they choose to explore the world, not because they feel forced to escape hardship at home.

I want young people to see their village not as a place to flee, but as a foundation from which they can grow. I want them to see agriculture as business and innovation, not backwardness; community service as leadership, not wasted time; and cooperation as strength, not weakness.

I want our people to understand that national renewal begins with local renewal.

Let every community become its own republic of purpose: organized, informed, compassionate, productive, demanding, and united. Let it identify its strengths, confront its problems, cultivate its young people, protect its vulnerable, and hold public authorities accountable.

To be rooted is not to be trapped. It is to stand firmly enough that one can grow, create, and even reach outward to the world without losing oneself.

After more than forty years abroad, I know that no achievement completely silences the call of home. My hope is that future generations will not have to live with that same question: What if my country had given me a reason to stay?

Let us build communities that answer it—not with promises, but with purpose, unity, dignity, and opportunity.

“The challenge, therefore, is to change the direction of our perspective. Not to present the countryside as something that has been left behind, but as an area in which new generations can learn, undertake projects and create opportunities. The next step will be to continue shaping the initiative and move towards a structure that will allow it to be consolidated as an association or institution.”

A community without borders

It is a vision in which the experience of some can become an impetus for others, and in which geographical distances lose importance compared to human connections . This encapsulates the essence of “Rooted“:

“That they be able to fly above their own land. It’s not about preventing people from leaving or idealizing permanence. It’s about, according to the vision of its promoter, that staying can also be an option with opportunities, training and a future.” Close your eyes and see New York in Georgetown

 

 

 

AI Has Changed the Cybersecurity Equation—Guyana Must Catch Up

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 AI Has Changed the Cybersecurity Equation—Guyana Must Catch Up

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

AI did not create the PHP vulnerability. It exposed the illusion that the internet was safe simply because exploiting certain flaws was too tedious for humans. Why was one of the most severe threats to the foundation of the internet left unresolved for 22 years? Because it would have taken mind-numbing work for a human to figure out how to take advantage of it: tedious, time-consuming, monotonous coding. That rendered the PHP vulnerability impractical to exploit.

AI just figured out how to do it in two days.

For  22 years, a major weakness reportedly existed in PHP, one of the programming languages upon which much of the internet depends. Researchers understood the danger in theory. But exploiting it was so laborious, repetitive and technically demanding that it remained largely beyond practical reach.

That difficult work was, in effect, the world’s security system. Artificial intelligence has now shattered that false comfort.

AI-assisted researchers reportedly found ways to exploit the long-standing PHP weakness in only days—work that could have consumed human experts months or years. The immediate threat may have been patched, but the warning could not be clearer: the digital world has entered a new era in which vulnerabilities once protected by complexity, obscurity and human exhaustion may become targets overnight.

Guyana, the Caribbean and developing states everywhere must take notice.

No Longer Just a Technology Story

This is not an abstract concern for software engineers in Silicon Valley. Government agencies, banks, schools, hospitals, utilities, media houses, courts, businesses and civil-society organizations increasingly depend on websites, databases, online payment systems and cloud-based services.

Many of those systems use old software. Many rely on outside contractors. Some may be poorly documented, inadequately monitored or patched only after something goes wrong.

That is a dangerous way to operate in an AI-driven world.

A cyberattack against a government website is not merely an inconvenience. It can interrupt public services, leak citizens’ personal information, interfere with tax and licensing systems, compromise procurement records, spread false information through official channels or disrupt agencies responsible for health, security and infrastructure.

In a country expanding rapidly through oil revenues, major infrastructure projects and digital-government initiatives, Guyana is becoming a more attractive target. Greater wealth, more government spending, larger databases and increasingly interconnected services create new opportunities not only for development, but also for cybercrime, espionage, fraud and sabotage.

The country cannot build a modern digital state on outdated assumptions.

“Security by Exhaustion” Is Dead

For too long, organizations have benefited from a hidden layer of protection: many weaknesses remained unexploited because criminals had to invest significant time and specialist skill to find and weaponize them.

AI has begun to remove that barrier.

A malicious actor no longer needs a large team of elite programmers to search endlessly through code, test thousands of possible attack paths and refine a failed exploit over weeks. AI can assist with the repetitive work: analyzing code, generating test cases, identifying weaknesses, reviewing errors and attempting alternative methods at a speed no individual researcher can match.

That does not mean every hacker suddenly has the power to break into every system. But it does mean that neglected systems are becoming far more exposed.

The old question was: “Would anyone invest the effort to attack us?” The new question must be: “If our weakness can be discovered or exploited cheaply and quickly, how long before someone tries?”

Government Must Lead

Guyana needs a serious, visible and sustained national cybersecurity posture. It cannot depend on occasional statements, basic website upgrades or a response assembled after a major breach.

The government should establish and publish minimum cybersecurity standards for all public agencies, state-owned entities and contractors handling public data. These standards should cover patch management, password controls, multi-factor authentication, encrypted backups, access logs, independent security testing and clear breach-reporting procedures.

There should also be a comprehensive audit of government websites, online portals, databases and legacy systems. Authorities must know what software is in use, whether it is supported, when it was last patched and who is accountable for maintaining it.

That work may sound mundane. It is precisely the sort of work that prevents crises.

Guyana must also invest in skilled local cybersecurity personnel. An overreliance on foreign contractors can leave public institutions unable to understand, monitor or secure the systems they are paying for. The country needs trained professionals inside the public service, backed by competitive salaries, clear authority and continuing education.

At the regional level, CARICOM states should deepen intelligence-sharing, incident-response coordination and joint training. Cybercriminals do not respect borders, and neither should Caribbean cybersecurity planning.

Contractors Must Be Accountable

Too often, governments purchase expensive digital systems without ensuring that vendors remain responsible for secure maintenance. A portal may be launched with fanfare, only to be neglected after the contract ends. Software becomes outdated, security patches are ignored and no one knows who has access to the system.

That is an invitation to disaster.

Every major public technology contract should include firm obligations for security updates, vulnerability testing, incident response, data protection and independent audits. Vendors should not be allowed to deliver a digital system, collect payment and disappear while public data remains exposed.

Public agencies should also be required to maintain an accurate inventory of the digital systems they operate. One cannot protect what one does not know exists.

 Citizens Also Need Protection

Cybersecurity is not only about government servers. It is about people.

A breach can expose national identification details, medical information, bank records, addresses, phone numbers, tax documents and private communications. That information can be used for identity theft, fraud, extortion and political intimidation.

Citizens deserve transparency when their data has been compromised. Institutions must not conceal breaches out of embarrassment or fear of reputational damage. Concealment gives criminals more time and deprives affected people of the opportunity to protect themselves.

Guyana needs stronger data-protection enforcement, mandatory breach-notification rules and meaningful consequences for institutions that fail to safeguard sensitive information.

AI Must Be Used for Defense

The answer is not to reject artificial intelligence. AI is now part of the cybersecurity landscape, whether governments and institutions embrace it or not.

Used responsibly, it can help identify weaknesses before criminals do. It can monitor abnormal network activity, detect fraud, prioritize urgent software updates and assist overwhelmed technical teams in responding to threats.

But Guyana cannot wait until an attack exposes the cost of neglect.

The reported PHP vulnerability is a warning that the internet was never as secure as it appeared. Many systems were protected less by robust design than by the fact that exploiting their weaknesses demanded too much human effort.

That era is ending.

AI has made it possible to move beyond security by exhaustion. But it has also made delay, neglect and poor preparation far more dangerous. Guyana’s public institutions, businesses and policymakers must decide whether to use this new technology to strengthen national resilience—or wait until criminals use it to expose every weakness we refused to fix.

 

The Jagdeo Proposition

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 The Jagdeo Proposition

OPINION BY : GHK LALL October 2026

The Jagdeo Proposition is on the table.  It’s the Sabbath.  A time of introspection, then connection to upstairs.  What better time to give Dr. Jagdeo’s offer some careful consideration?  Politics or purity of purpose….  Timely, after 60 years; but is it the real deal?  There it is: PPP-PNC fusion.  Has potential, but only if true to its core.

In contemplating the Jagdeo Proposition, the preference is for the Jagdeo Doctrine.  The former is too much of street soliciting; the latter more statesmanlike. He was a head of state, it must be noted.  Note also something I have said many times: no man is beyond redemption.  Brother Jagdeo is in need of a whole lot of redemption, given his record, which is why I pray for him daily (and the other chap also).  Plus, the four others on the other side: Norton, Campbell, Mohamed, Walton-Desir (Ms.).  If he is the genuine article, the PPP General Secretary is the right man.  Elaboration.  Recall the last Local Government Elections.  ‘The PPP is a forgiving party.’  Wasn’t me that said so, but the man himself.  Hence, former PNC Mayor Lady Patricia Chase-Green welcomed into the PPP fold.  Recall again the 2025 elections.  Another PNC stalwart, one who got hosed with rubber warheads for the PNC, finding a new home in the PPP cup. 

The symmetry is immaculate, nicely glossed, and a well-packaged Jagdeo secret.  He holds those close; available for use should men behave radically.

The point on this Sabbath is that Dr. Jagdeo can change his spots to suit his sensitivities, his menacing environment.  The question must be asked.  If there was no Mohamed (Mr.) would there be the Jagdeo PPP-PNC proposition? Whether so or not, absorb the grand nature of Guyana’s vice president, he who is of forgiveness (Chase-Green et al).  A man of great vindictiveness and viciousness (collect an affidavit from me), now on the road to universal forgiveness.  Instead of a handful of PNC drumbeaters, Jagdeo is forgiving the whole crowd of them. 

It is why I ask if this cat called Jagdeo is the genuine article.  In this usage, cat has nothing to do with jazz musicians.  It has everything to do with political lives.  There is the Mohamed factor dangling.

Also hanging by a thread are all those battalions of PNC luminaries and foot soldiers who were sent packing, who haven’t worked for over six years, who have not a scrap of change in their hand or pocket.  Change is needed.  But is the change that Jagdeo laid on the table real or counterfeit?  With a character of the caliber of Dr. Jagdeo, I would walk with a microscope, a goldsmith, and a shot of rum.  The latter is for any emergencies, such as if the coin on the table is trash and not real cash. 

There are PNC Guyanese who need real change, real cash, and real inspiration.  Mr. Jagdeo swore at a most solemn occasion that he is of all three.  In a nutshell, let the past be just that -the past.

I pinch myself.  Are my prayers really working?  Is this happening?  Like I have said repeatedly: no man is so far gone that he is beyond salvaging. Look at me, there’s testimony.  And, I haven’t had the richness of being around Jagdeo or Mohamed.  I encourage my fellow Guyanese to consider the Jagdeo Proposition in all of its contours.  From a politician to a prophet (a better Guyana promised).  From perversity to potential prosperity (for all [maybe except Mohamed]).  From the loneliness of two terms to the majesty of a lifetime presidency.  I am sharing how the territory is seen.  There is resistance to sharing how I think all of this will materialize.  Jagdeo is the prophet.  I am the peasant that doubles as a petitioner and messenger.  Recall what they do to messengers from time immemorial, from Judea and Samaria to Mecca.

I like the Jagdeo Doctrine.  Living to see it come to pass, now that’s a different proposition 

<

p style=”text-align: center;”> .

 Beyond 2031: Who Can Hold Power Accountable in Guyana?

/0 Comments/in , , /by
592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Beyond 2031: Who Can Hold Power Accountable in Guyana?

From Skeldon to Wales – would this be the undoing  of the PPP tenure?

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

There is a seductive story making the rounds for the upcoming election cycle. It goes like this: the Wales Gas-to-Energy project is this decade’s Skeldon factory — a contractor out of its depth, a price tag that only ever climbs, a promised transformation that recedes like a mirage — and just as Skeldon’s troubles helped bury the PPP/C in 2015, the blackouts and cost overruns of Wales will bury them again in 2031

The story is satisfying. It is also far too simple. It raises real questions about procurement, costs and accountability — but it does not establish its predicted electoral consequences, because it treats Guyanese politics as a machine where public frustration goes in and electoral defeat comes out, untouched by anything happening in Washington, Houston or the Pentagon.

The harder truth is this: the Gas-to-Energy project may disappoint Guyanese consumers without costing the PPP-C a single seat — and even a change of government in 2031 might change less than voters expect. The real question is not who wins the next election. It is whether Guyanese citizens, institutions and courts retain any meaningful power to demand results — from this government, from its successor, and from the foreign partners whose money and security cooperation now surround both.

What Guyanese Actually Live With

Before any grand theory of geopolitics, start with what happens when the lights go out.

GPL’s own managers, explaining the September 2026 outages, described a utility that can generate enough electricity but cannot reliably deliver it. “The reality is that the distribution system is now facing challenges,” said Kesh Nandlall, head of GPL’s Executive Management Committee — “feeders are now being overloaded, transformers are being taxed and overloaded (and) some people get voltage fluctuations.” Deputy Chief Executive Officer Bharat Harjohn was blunter: “Most of our feeders are tripping right now because of overloading conditions”. Peak demand hit 257 megawatts in early September against 265.6 megawatts of installed capacity — almost no headroom — and GPL says demand keeps “outpacing the development of the upgrades, and the introduction of the Wales Gas-to-Energy project” . A ministry official has told Guyanese plainly that blackouts will continue until power lines and substations are fixed .

This is happening in a country whose Natural Resource Fund recorded US$3.88 billion in petroleum receipts in the first nine months of 2026 — well above the original full-year forecast . The lesson is stark: large petroleum receipts do not automatically produce reliable electricity. GPL’s September explanation illustrates why additional generation alone cannot guarantee reliable service — distribution upgrades must also deliver, and on that front the utility was still catching up with demand it said was outpacing both its upgrades and the introduction of the Wales project itself.

Meanwhile, the arithmetic of Wales keeps moving:

The original Lindsayca-CH4 contract, signed in December 2022, was US$759 million .

In May 2026, after an adjudication process, the contract was raised by roughly US$97 million (12.8 per cent) to about US$856 million — with both sides dropping claims over past late-delivery penalties, though the government retained the ability to reinstate penalties if the revised delivery dates are missed .

In October 2026, reporting emerged of a reported request for US$102 million, with the claim — attributed to unnamed sources, unconfirmed by the US Embassy or the Office of the President — that the Embassy was backing the contractor’s push. It remains unclear whether the reported US$102 million would be additional to the May increase. An earlier April report described a US$250 million request, which should not be treated as an awarded or cumulative sum. President Ali confirmed only that Lindsayca had asked for more money and that the request “has not been discussed” .

And the timetable? President Ali originally expected completion by the end of 2023, and the plant was then due by the end of 2024. First power is now slated for the end of 2026 — roughly 57 megawatts — with full 300-megawatt output in 2027 and combined-cycle operation by June 2027. The Global Energy Monitor still lists every unit at Wales as under construction or pre-construction — nothing yet operating .

This is the on-the-ground reality behind every press conference: a distribution network GPL was describing as overtaxed as recently as September, a contractor returning for more money every few months, and a promised 50 per cent cut in electricity bills that the government now says is being delivered in phases — starting, tellingly, with communities served by solar and batteries rather than by the gas plant itself .

And here is the distinction the country cannot afford to miss: a plant producing electricity is not the same as a household paying less. Between the turbine and the meter stand transmission lines, distribution upgrades, system losses, and tariff calculations that should be published and open to challenge. If the savings evaporate in a distribution system that GPL was still racing to upgrade in September, “first power” will be a press release, not a deliverable. Households and small businesses may face real consequences along that chain — generator fuel through a blackout, spoiled stock, interrupted work — from generation to transmission to distribution to the final bill.

The Skeldon Analogy — Right and Wrong

The latest analysis raises legitimate questions about procurement, technical scrutiny, escalating costs and accountability. Those questions deserve investigation. But they do not establish that two different projects must share either an engineering outcome or an electoral consequence.

The analysis causal leap does not hold. The claim that Skeldon “cost the PPP/C the 2015 election” is political shorthand, not demonstrated fact — the analyst has not shown that the factory, rather than any number of other factors, decided that election. Placing Skeldon beside the 2015 result proves nothing about causation — and neither does placing Wales beside 2031.

Voters do weigh delivery. But they weigh it against alternatives, against coalition politics, against the memory of the other side’s record, and against a simple question: is my life better than it was? Oil money flowing into infrastructure, transfers and public employment can offset a great deal of anger about blackouts. The PPP-C’s strategists understand this perfectly well.

Three outcomes, then, are genuinely possible — and honest analysis has to hold all three:

Wales delivers. The plant comes on stream in 2027, bills fall meaningfully, reliability improves — and the procurement and cost history still deserve scrutiny, because success does not retroactively justify opacity.

Wales disappoints, and the government survives. Delays, underperformance and a shortfall on the tariff promise impose real costs — and voters still return the PPP/C, judging it on other grounds. Dissatisfaction is not the same thing as defeat.

Voters change the government — and less changes than expected. A successor inherits the same contracts, the same loan, the same security arrangements. A change of party is not automatically a change in the underlying distribution of power.

The third possibility is where the conversation the country keeps avoiding actually begins.

What Washington Has Bought Into

There is a harder version of the argument about 2031 — one that deserves to be stated openly rather than whispered. It is not that the election is fixed. It is that powerful external interests now hold important financial and strategic interests in Guyana’s policy continuity, regardless of who governs.

Consider what the United States has actually taken on:

A direct financial stake in the project. In December 2024, the US Export-Import Bank approved US$526 million in financing to Guyana’s Ministry of Finance for the gas-to-energy project ; the loan agreement was signed the following month — though approval and signature are not the same as disbursement, and Guyanese have not been told exactly how much has been drawn. An American government bank is now a creditor of the Guyanese state on the strength of a project being executed by a contractor that keeps requesting more money.

It is a fair question — not an accusation, a question — whether that relationship makes it harder for Guyana to hold the line on cost. It is equally fair to note the countervailing possibility: that American lenders and policymakers also have reasons to favor successful delivery and rigorous oversight. Guyanese citizens, meanwhile, need clarity about repayment obligations and how they would be met if project revenues or savings disappoint.

A new security partnership. On October 21, 2026, President Ali and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a Joint Declaration for an Enhanced Defense Partnership at the Pentagon. The announcement describes sustained defense expertise, multidomain training, joint exercises with the GDF, strengthened air-domain awareness, and cooperation against narcotics trafficking, all in the shadow of Venezuela’s claim to Essequibo . The reporting does not establish basing rights or a mutual-defense guarantee, and it does not set out the declaration’s legal status, financial obligations or termination provisions — which is precisely why Guyanese are entitled to ask what the instrument itself says.

But its direction is clear: Guyana’s security posture is being built substantially in partnership with Washington.

A demonstrated appetite for converting oil into state leverage. In August 2026, the White House announced its Venezuela arrangement: a joint venture in which the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital takes a 35 per cent ownership stake, with — per the White House’s own account — 100-year rights over 17 oil fields holding 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, guaranteed purchase of 20 per cent of output at cost, US veto power over board appointments, and — in the U.S. government’s agreement with NABEP — governance under U.S. law and U.S. courts .

The announced arrangement demonstrates a willingness to combine government ownership, commercial access and foreign policy. It does not establish a template for Guyana.

None of this constitutes evidence of a plan to influence Guyana’s 2031 election — and this editorial does not allege one. What exists is a structure of relationships — financial, military, commercial — that could narrow the bargaining options of any future Guyanese government, of either party, before it enforces penalties against a well-connected contractor, renegotiates with ExxonMobil, or charts a course Washington dislikes.

Leverage does not have to be used to shape behavior; its existence is often enough. Whether it has been used is precisely what Guyanese should be able to find out: the government should disclose whether diplomatic representations have influenced payment decisions, procurement, or the enforcement of contractual remedies.       

Concentration of essential relationships can narrow options; the extent of that risk should be demonstrated, not assumed.

And here Guyanese history supplies the reason that question can never be dismissed as paranoia. In the early 1960s, the Kennedy administration, unwilling to accept another “Castro-type regime” in the hemisphere, ran a covert CIA campaign against Cheddi Jagan — funding the 1963 general strike, financing Forbes Burnham’s and Peter d’Aguiar’s parties, and pressing Britain to impose proportional representation, a voting system American officials expected would help dislodge Jagan. In December 1964, Jagan’s PPP took the largest share of the vote — 46 per cent, and 24 seats to the PNC’s 22 and the United Force’s 7 — but with no outright majority, the Governor invited Burnham to form a coalition government. The PPP then spent 28 years in opposition.

The irony is sharp: the party that was the target of a documented covert intervention now governs a country whose partnership with the intervening power is expanding by the year.

That history justifies demanding safeguards and disclosure. It does not establish a contemporary operation, and it does not relieve anyone alleging one of the obligation to produce evidence.

What Sovereignty Actually Means Now

Sovereignty is not a flag-raising ceremony. It is the practical capacity to make six decisions and have them count:

Can Guyana enforce its contracts? The May 2026 settlement dropped claims over past late-delivery penalties while retaining the right to reinstate them if revised milestones are missed . Guyanese deserve the justification for that bargain — and independent verification that the new deadlines are being met.

A country that cannot enforce a penalty clause against a major contractor is a country that negotiates everything twice.

Can Guyana see the numbers? Guyanese should have a single, reconciled, component-by-component account of what Wales has cost, what the EXIM loan covers, who bears each overrun, and what the ratepayer will pay for how long. Parliament should demand it monthly — and publish it.

Can the savings reach the bill? The promise was a 50 per cent reduction. The test is a real reduction on a published baseline and comparable consumption in 2027 — after transmission losses, after GPL’s upgrades, after tariff decisions. If it does not arrive, Guyanese should know exactly which link in the chain broke, and who is responsible for that link.

Can Guyana publish its commitments? The October 21 defense declaration was announced in a press release. Its legal status, financial obligations and exit provisions are not matters of operational secrecy; they are matters of democratic scrutiny. Sensitive operational details can be protected. The allocation of authority cannot be classified in a democracy.

Can Guyana diversify? The more that essential relationships — financing, security cooperation, major contracting — concentrate in one capital, the fewer options Guyana has in every negotiation. Guyana needs the strongest possible ties with Washington — and equally serious ties elsewhere, so that “no” remains an available word when it needs to be said.

Can Guyanese change course without permission? If in 2031 voters choose a different government, the world will learn what Guyanese sovereignty means by whether that government can renegotiate, investigate and enforce — within the law and within its treaty and contractual obligations, but effectively — or whether the machinery is now beyond the reach of elections.

The Bottom Line

The analyst is right that Skeldon and Wales rhyme. He is wrong that the rhyme has a guaranteed ending. He surely identifies a warning worth examining, not an election result already determined. Project failure demands accountability; whether Guyana’s institutions and voters deliver it remains an open question — and it is the only question that matters.

The PPP/C may win in 2031. It may lose. But if Guyanese cannot enforce a contract against a well-connected contractor, cannot see the true cost of their largest project, cannot scrutinize the terms of their own defense arrangements, and cannot make a 50 per cent tariff promise stick to an actual bill — then the election will have decided who sits in office, and left undisturbed who holds power.

Guyana’s sovereignty will not be measured by how warmly Washington receives its leaders, or by how many megawatts eventually hum at Wales. It will be measured by whether Guyanese institutions can say no — to a bad contract, an improper request, or a failing government — and make that no count.

That is what is at stake between now and 2031. Not a prediction. A choice