Salazar’s “Forceful” Defense of Guyana Raises Questions About Lobbying Influence

/0 Comments/in , /by

Staff -Writer

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Guyana’s ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) on Tuesday described as “forceful” the statement issued by United States Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar in defense of Guyana’s territorial sovereignty amid escalating rhetoric from Venezuela’s interim President, Delcy Rodríguez.

Congresswoman Salazar, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, took to X (formerly Twitter) to rebuke Venezuela’s posture, warning that Rodríguez appeared intent on attempting to mislead U.S. President Donald Trump in the same way she and the now-ousted Nicolás Maduro administration “tricked and destroyed” Venezuela.
“Delcy should stop threatening Guyana and start learning from it,” Salazar stated.

Her comments followed closely on the heels of Rodríguez’s declaration at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Venezuela would not recognize the Court’s authority in determining the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award. Rodríguez instead reaffirmed Venezuela’s position that the 1966 Geneva Agreement is the only legitimate mechanism for resolving the controversy, warning that any ICJ ruling could deepen divisions.
Salazar also criticized what she described as back-channel diplomacy, urging Rodríguez not to engage in “secret” communications with President Trump while advancing territorial claims against Guyana.

“You don’t deal with him through secret letters while trying to steal territory from a free and sovereign nation like Guyana,” she asserted.
The U.S. lawmaker further praised Guyana’s management of its oil revenues, highlighting the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund and rapid economic growth as evidence of responsible governance.

While the Guyana Government had not issued an immediate response, Salazar’s intervention is not occurring in a vacuum. She has previously been among the most vocal members of Congress linking Guyanese businessman Azruddin “Azz” Mohamed to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—framing his business activities and political ambitions as part of a wider “malign influence” network tied to Caracas within the Caribbean.

That line of argument closely mirrors messaging historically associated with Continental Strategy, a U.S.-based lobbying firm retained by the PPP/C administration. The overlap has fueled assertions in some political quarters that Salazar’s positions on Guyana-related matters may be aligned with, or influenced by, lobbying narratives advanced on behalf of the government. However, no direct evidence of coordination has been publicly confirmed.

The ICJ is expected to deliver its ruling on the merits of the case by the end of 2026 or early 2027, a decision likely to have far-reaching implications for the decades-old border controversy.

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

Broadway now the PPP Govt way

/0 Comments/in , /by

BY: GHK Lall

Compliments of a stream of articles from the 592Guardian site, it is intriguing how the top dogs in the PPP Govt go about the serious business of leading a troubled nation.  A nation divided.  A nation that boasts of a capital city that turns into an aqueduct when it rains beyond a drizzle.  An inviting blue aqueduct such as a swimming pool would be welcomed.  But not, I think, an aqueduct of darkened waters well-nourished by mud, the overflow of drains, and whatever else garbage strewn roads contribute to the lakes that spring up after any downpour of length and strength.

It rains and PPP headmen come out and fan out.  The headwomen runout in their well-clad in Balenciaga and Este Lauder and Prada ensembles.  Remember the title of that show about Prada, and let it stick.  It rains and there’s a snapshot.  A portrait for Facebook and Guyana’s history books.  Take a close look and see for self: who cares, who’s there, and who shares in sun and rain.  Leaders of a special kind?  Or actors who know their lines and stay within the lines they must walk.  So as not to spoil the fresh, inspiring images of true leadership on exhibition.

What was done before the rains came?  Why do leaders come out and umbrellas go up only when an environmental condition blows up into a crisis?  Like a deluge of rainwaters in GT that leads to floodwaters swirling to the knees and creating broad seas everywhere that the eye can see.  By gum, this is the capital city of a rich, the richest (by some accounts), oil producing nation, six years and counting. 

I recall one leader before.  It should emphasize how much playing acting and role playing have become enmeshed in real-life situations, in leadership practices.  It should expose what calls for answers and actions and not Bollywood or Broadway extravaganzas.  A few years ago, there was the figure of the leader in the pre-sunup hours at the Meadow Bank wharf.  He was all hatted and cloaked (just like around the recent floodwaters).  He was well-umbrellaed (just like the past few days), while a hovering entourage of lackeys and hangers-on were around to complete the feed for government channels to expand their propaganda assaults.  Even prawns were volunteered, painted over, and arrayed in inviting bundles to present a perfect picture.  The lengths that leaders in this country go to sell unreal, unconvincing propaganda.

Propaganda that sells sheen and gloss.  But not the grime of dismal reality.  Propaganda that sells the swept and polished surface.  But not the great, big, ugly, mucky, stinky underbelly of GT and other neglected communities across Guyana that are a disgrace to Guyanese.  Six years of increasing daily oil production.  Six years of major portions of the oil money withdrawn.  Still, six years later, Guyanese must use a capital city where they have to remove their shoes, roll-up their pants, and brave the potholes, the rodents, and the traffic whenever it rains more than a passing shower.  Big government blame li’l government.  City government point a finger right back at Central government.  Citizens stuck in between lift a foot, raise a finger, drop their clothes and moon them both.

In this scene repeated with reasonable frequency, leaders and ministers run out, run around, and roundup the cameramen as though they are making a Cowboy movie.  They are.  Most likely a la Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles.  It might be flood or funeral, dam breakaway or political getaway, and there is a guarantee: a leader, a minister, with a sad face, sadder words, and the saddest spirits ever captured on video.  This is the bull that is sold to Guyanese by leaders and ministers.  This is the Award-winning performances that from leaders to losers (sorry for the duplication) present to citizens, and are allowed to keep repeating the same.  Political acting jobs is the biggest growth sector in Guyana, and offer the richest career opportunities.  When anyone sees a real public servant getting the vital jobs done, please share.  Broadway and Bollywood in action.

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

“A Climate Warning Guyana Cannot Ignore: Food Security at Risk”

/0 Comments/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Guyana cannot afford to ignore the storm signals flashing across South America. What is unfolding is not just another cycle of bad weather—it is a deepening climate emergency that is already disrupting food systems, draining water supplies, and destabilizing rural livelihoods across the region. And it is heading in our direction.
From the Andes to the Pacific coast, extreme heat, vanishing water reserves, and violent floods have combined to cripple agricultural production. Inland lakes are drying up. Glaciers that once fed major rivers are disappearing. Farms are being washed out one season and scorched the next. The result is predictable: reduced crop yields, rising food prices, and a steady exodus of farmers who can no longer survive on the land.
Now, the full force of El Niño is building—and with it, the likelihood of even harsher extremes.

Peru is already bracing to spend over US$1 billion to cope with the fallout. That figure alone should be a wake-up call. If countries with larger economies are struggling, Guyana—with its low-lying coast and fragile drainage systems—faces an even more precarious future.
For Guyanese farmers, the warning is immediate and personal.
Rice farmers along the Essequibo and Berbice coasts are especially exposed. Too little rainfall can reduce yields and increase salinity in irrigation channels, while sudden heavy rains can flood fields and destroy entire crops within days. Sugar production, already under strain, is equally vulnerable to erratic weather patterns that disrupt planting and harvesting cycles.

In the hinterland, where farming depends heavily on natural rainfall, prolonged dry spells can devastate cassava, ground provisions, and small-scale cash crops. Livestock farmers are not spared either—heat stress, reduced pasture quality, and water shortages can quickly erode productivity.
All of this is unfolding against an already troubling backdrop: rising fertilizer costs, limited access to key agricultural inputs, and increasing transportation expenses. Farmers are being squeezed from every direction—by nature and by market forces.

For the average Guyanese household, the implications are stark. Food prices will rise. Availability will fluctuate. Basic staples could become harder to access consistently. What we are seeing is the early formation of a food security crisis, driven not by a single event but by overlapping pressures that are intensifying with each passing season.
This is how vulnerability turns into crisis—quietly at first, then all at once.

Yet where is the national response? Where is the coordinated plan to protect farmers, stabilize production, and shield citizens from the worst of these impacts? Climate resilience cannot remain a talking point; it must become policy, investment, and action.
Farmers need support to adapt—better drainage and irrigation systems, access to climate-resilient crops, and timely financial assistance. Citizens need to be informed and prepared for shifting food realities. And the country as a whole must begin treating climate threats with the seriousness they demand.

The warning signs are no longer distant. They are regional, they are escalating, and they are relevant to every Guyanese household.
If we fail to act now, food insecurity will not be a projection—it will be our reality.

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

A systemwide rot, and a government armored against scrutiny

/0 Comments/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

What is unfolding is no longer a matter of isolated incompetence or the occasional administrative lapse. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is a systemwide symptom — a deeper failure of governance, discipline, accountability, and institutional honesty. When a government repeatedly stumbles in the same areas, over the same issues, with the same excuses, the problem is no longer the rain, the flood, the blocked drain, or the delayed response. The problem is the system itself.

And at the center of that system is a political culture that has too often insulated itself from scrutiny. Over time, this administration has constructed a carefully curated shield against accountability. Parliament has been abandoned as a meaningful arena of interrogation. Inquisitive opposition voices have been excluded, minimized, or treated as inconveniences rather than necessary democratic checks. The result is an executive that increasingly appears enamored against scrutiny, answering to no one with any real seriousness. That is how a government begins to mistake silence for competence.

This is where the  “𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲” becomes not merely a phrase of frustration, but a diagnosis. It reflects a governing posture that seems detached from urgency, allergic to responsibility, and unwilling to confront its own failings with honesty. When institutions are weakened and dissent is brushed aside, poor performance does not stand exposed for correction. It hardens into habit. It becomes normalized. Then the public is left to absorb the consequences while those in authority continue to act as though appearance is a substitute for delivery.

The deeper tragedy is that none of this should be necessary. A president should not have to be dragged into the weeds of day-to-day micromanagement simply to discover whether pumps are working, sluices are opened, or a construction site has blocked a critical drain. That is not the function of the presidency. The role of a head of state is to ensure that systems are built, delegated properly, monitored effectively, and enforced without fear or favor. If those systems fail, then accountability should travel downward to the administrators responsible, not upward to the office already burdened with national leadership.

𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘺.  

𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨, 𝙖 𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩.

That is the uncomfortable truth now confronting the country. If the head is failing to insist on standards, if the system is built to protect mediocrity, and if scrutiny is deliberately weakened, then the collapse cannot be blamed on those below alone. The harvest is coming from seeds already planted. The administration may now be reaping what it has sown: a governance model built on managed appearances, weak accountability, and an alarming comfort with failure.

This is why the issue cannot be reduced to floods alone, or to one environmental mishap after another. 

Those are only the visible symptoms. The real illness is institutional. It is the absence of decisive delegation, the refusal to demand performance, the erosion of oversight, and the deliberate narrowing of democratic pressure. A government that surrounds itself with obedient silence will eventually find that silence is not stability. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙮.

The public understands this far more clearly than the political class often admits. People know the difference between leadership and performance, between accountability and theater, between administration and improvisation. They know when a government is solving problems and when it is simply surviving them. And increasingly, they see a state that is reacting to failure rather than preventing it.

That is the danger of governing behind a shield. Once scrutiny is shut out, the same mistakes return uncorrected. Once opposition is excluded, the warning signals disappear. Once ministers and administrators are protected from consequence, the rot spreads upward until the highest office is forced to intervene where a competent system should already have done the work.

And so the central question remains: how long can a country sustain a system that mistakes insulation for strength? The answer, as events keep showing, is not very long at all.

𝙋𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚? 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚.

This government loves to talk the language of merit, results, and 𝒑𝒂𝒚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚.when it suits them. Fine. But then the same people who benefit from that slogan must be judged by it too. You cannot claim the mantle of efficiency while protecting shirkers, excusing incompetence, and rewarding failure with comfort, access, and continued relevance.

That is where the public’s patience runs thin. Too many of these beneficiaries are quick with the speeches and slow with the delivery. 

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩’𝙨 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙬, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚.

 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙠𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙛.

But performance is not a slogan; it is a standard. If drains are blocked, if sluices are neglected, if response systems are weak, if institutions are asleep, then somebody has to answer for it. Not tomorrow. Not at the next photo op. Now.

And this is why the whole “pay with performance” line sounds hollow when the administration keeps carrying dead weight. You cannot build a culture of excellence with a culture of excuses. You cannot demand results while shielding the very people who keep missing the mark. At some point, the shirkers have to be named for what they are: beneficiaries of a system that demands less than it pretends to expect.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙜.

𝙄𝙛 “𝙥𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚” 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨: 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢, 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚.

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

𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬: 𝐅𝐢𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦

/0 Comments/in , /by

Dear Editor,

The Government’s announced plan to establish a dedicated forensic interview (FI) unit for child abuse victims is a necessary and long-overdue step toward strengthening the national response to one of the most serious social crises affecting our society.

Currently, these interviews — a critical component in securing evidence and protecting victims — are conducted by non-governmental organisations such as ChildLink and Blossoms Inc., supported by the Child Protection Agency (CPA). Transitioning this function into a State-managed unit should, in principle, improve access and timeliness. However, while this development is welcome, it does not go far enough in addressing the deeper structural deficiencies that continue to undermine child protection efforts.

The central issue is not merely who conducts forensic interviews, but the absence of a cohesive, end-to-end investigative framework. At present, cases are fragmented across multiple agencies — police, Child Protection Officers, medical personnel, and external service providers — creating gaps where accountability is diluted and critical missteps can occur. These gaps often result in delayed medical examinations, inconsistent documentation, and poorly coordinated case management, all of which can ultimately weaken prosecutions.

What is required is a dedicated, specialised investigative unit assigned to each case from the point of report through to its submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Such a unit should be responsible for coordinating every stage of the process: ensuring timely medical examinations, managing forensic interviews, liaising with child protection services, and producing comprehensive, high-quality case files. This continuity would eliminate the systemic lapses that currently allow cases to falter.

The Minister herself has acknowledged deficiencies in case reporting, noting that gaps in documentation can determine whether a matter “goes left or right.” While increased training is important, it cannot compensate for a system where responsibility is fragmented and no single entity is accountable for the integrity of the case from start to finish.

Equally concerning is the continued shortage of Child Protection Officers across regions. The existence of rapid response mechanisms is commendable, but these initiatives cannot function effectively without adequate staffing. One officer per region is not a solution; it is an admission of limited capacity in the face of a growing and complex problem.

The proposed digital tracking system is another positive initiative, offering the potential for greater visibility into how cases progress. However, tracking alone does not resolve systemic inefficiencies. It merely records them. Real reform requires structural alignment, clear lines of responsibility, and professional ownership of each case.

There is also concern regarding the extent of ministerial involvement in operational matters. While oversight is essential, the system risks inefficiency if it is subject to continuous micro-management at the political level. The role of the Minister should be to set policy direction, allocate resources, and conduct periodic audits to ensure accountability. The day-to-day management of cases must be left to trained professionals, supported by clear protocols and performance standards. Effective governance depends not on constant intervention, but on building a system that functions competently without it.

Child protection demands urgency, coordination, and professionalism. More importantly, it requires a system where accountability is clear and continuous, not dispersed across multiple actors. The establishment of a forensic interview unit is a step forward, but without broader structural reform, it risks becoming another isolated fix within an already strained framework.

If we are serious about protecting our children, then the approach must be comprehensive, integrated, and uncompromising in its focus on outcomes. Anything less will continue to leave vulnerable children exposed to the very failures we claim to be addressing.

Yours faithfully, 

Hemdutt Kumar 

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

OPR Probes Alleged Interference by Deputy Police Commissioner in Anti-Crime Operation

/0 Comments/in , /by

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The Guyana Police Force has launched an internal investigation into allegations that Deputy Commissioner of Police, Fizal Karimbaksh, may have improperly intervened in a recent anti-crime operation, Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken has confirmed.
According to reports, police ranks were executing a lawful anti-crime exercise when they intercepted a heavily tinted white motor vehicle. Upon stopping the vehicle, a female occupant handed her cellphone to the officers. A male voice, identifying himself as Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh, was heard questioning the ranks about the basis for the stop and reportedly advised them to focus on crime rather than traffic-related matters.


Addressing the issue during the Police Round Up programme on Sunday, Commissioner Hicken described the incident as “concerning,” noting that the intervention appeared to have been made without proper verification and outside of the established chain of command.
He emphasized that while senior officers are permitted to intervene in ongoing operations, such actions must be grounded in situational awareness and strictly adhere to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and standing police orders. The Commissioner further underscored that under the Criminal Offences Act and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, ranks engaged in anti-crime duties are fully empowered to stop and search vehicles.


The incident, which was captured on camera and subsequently circulated on social media, has raised broader concerns about operational integrity and adherence to protocol within the Force. Commissioner Hicken reaffirmed that the officer conducting the stop-and-search was acting within the scope of the law.


He also reiterated the Force’s commitment to transparency and accountability, highlighting the continued use of body-worn cameras as part of an evidence-based policing approach. These devices, he noted, provide objective, real-time documentation of police interactions.
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has since been tasked with conducting a thorough investigation into the matter. Commissioner Hicken made it clear that any interference in police operations outside established procedures will be addressed in accordance with the law and internal disciplinary frameworks.
The 592 Guardian will be following this investigation closely as it unfolds, in the interest of transparency, accountability, and public trust.

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

Public Funds, Private Control: The Real Issue Behind Transport in Infrastructure Projects

/0 Comments/in , /by

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The statement by the Association of Chinese Enterprises in Guyana attempts to reframe a legitimate public concern as a misunderstanding, but it fails to address the core issue at hand: compliance with local content laws and equitable participation in a tax-funded economy.

These projects are not private ventures operating in isolation—they are government contracts financed by the people of Guyana. As such, they are subject to local content requirements designed to ensure that Guyanese workers and businesses meaningfully benefit from national development. The concern is not about efficiency or project delivery; it is about whether those legal and economic safeguards are being upheld consistently and transparently.

While the Association argues that in-house transportation fleets were created due to capacity constraints, this explanation overlooks a critical point. Local providers were not given a fair opportunity to scale, partner, or adapt to increased demand. Instead, foreign-controlled fleets assumed a dominant role in a key segment of the supply chain. This risks displacing local enterprise rather than developing it.

Moreover, the claim that these fleets are not intended to “capture the market” is difficult to reconcile with the reality of sustained operational control in transportation. Intent does not negate impact. When a single group gains functional dominance in an industry tied to public contracts, it raises valid questions about market access, competition, and regulatory oversight.

Guyana’s development strategy was never meant to replace local participation with foreign control. Investment agreements were premised on job creation, knowledge transfer, and partnership—not the consolidation of industries under external entities. The spirit of those agreements must be respected as much as their letter.

This is not a call for exclusion, but for balance, accountability, and adherence to the laws that protect Guyanese interests. True partnership requires transparency, mutual benefit, and a commitment to strengthening—not sidelining—local capacity.

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

Names, Numbers, and Power:   Why the System Turned on  Dr. Jadoopat.

/0 Comments/in , /by

BY: Staff Writer 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

There is an uncomfortable truth at the heart of Guyana’s extractive sector—one that powerful interests would prefer buried, redacted, or quietly erased. That truth is this: transparency was not only achieved, it was documented, published, and made accessible to the public under the stewardship of Dr.Rudy Jadoopat.

As National Coordinator of the Guyana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GYEITI) from 2017 to 2022, Dr.Jadoopat did what few in public office have dared to do—he operationalized transparency. Not as a slogan, but as a system. Not as rhetoric, but as verifiable data.

Under his leadership, Guyana did not merely subscribe to the EITI International Standard; it implemented it. The GYEITI National Secretariat was not just established—it was structured, managed, and driven to deliver measurable compliance with international requirements for accountability across oil and gas, mining, forestry, and fisheries.

But it is in the Annexes of the GYEITI Reports where the real story lies.

Those Annexes did not deal in abstractions. They named names. They detailed dates. They identified acreages, locations, and license numbers. They exposed, in plain data, the architecture of Guyana’s extractive economy—particularly the sprawling and notoriously opaque gold mining sector.

And therein lay the problem.

Because when transparency is real, it becomes inconvenient.

The disclosures did not discriminate. They revealed:

connections—individuals, associates, and entities tied to influence and power. Figures such as Su Zhi Rong, Ivor English,  Joe Harmon, Simona Broomes Ramzan Ali, Jagmohan and others emerged not through speculation, but through documented records. The Alphonso family reportedly holds claims to over one million acres of gold mining concessions. It is also alleged that they are part of the Multi-Stakeholder Group and serve as financiers of political parties and their leadership. Additionally, they are said to have the ability to influence state officials, including appointments and the removal of GGMC officers with whom they are not aligned.

The data spoke for itself, and it did so publicly.

For the political and economic elite, this was intolerable.

Transparency, when it begins to illuminate networks of privilege and proximity, is no longer celebrated—it becomes a threat.

What followed raises serious questions.

Jadoopat’s removal from his position did not occur in a vacuum. It coincided with growing unease about the breadth and accessibility of the information released. More troubling are the reported alterations to previously published datasets—columns removed, including critical fields such as “Date Granted” for concessions. These are not cosmetic edits; they strike at the integrity of the record.

Such actions, if verified, suggest not routine data management, but deliberate sanitization.

And here lies a critical miscalculation.

The data was never confined to a single server or website. It was downloaded, archived, and distributed. Local stakeholders, international organizations, and oversight bodies already possess the raw datasets. The attempt to retroactively obscure or modify public disclosures is not only futile—it invites deeper scrutiny.

Because in the age of digital transparency, erasure is not easily achieved. It is, however, easily detected.

What Guyana now faces is not simply a question of governance, but of credibility. The international community, including EITI oversight mechanisms and allied institutions, is watching closely—not just what is said, but what is changed, removed, or concealed.

Transparency cannot be selectively applied. It cannot be embraced when convenient and dismantled when uncomfortable.

If Guyana is to maintain any claim to accountability in its extractive industries, then the integrity of its disclosures must be defended—not diluted.

The work done between 2017 and 2022 set a benchmark. The question now is whether that benchmark will be upheld—or quietly undone.

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

A Government of Six for One

/0 Comments/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

/0 Comments/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.— ✦—