A War of Retreats Cannot Be Sold as Victory

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

 A War of Retreats Cannot Be Sold as Victory

A 592 Guardian opinion centered on the widening gap between presidential rhetoric and the strategic reality of a war that appears increasingly costly and inconclusive

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026 

A war that would have been declared over in a week, with the complete obliteration of the enemy. 

What would have  changed to  allowed that obliteration to be transformed into resurgence of the severely wounded and allowing them  to become the hunter with  the aggressor now  in hasty retreat ? 

The war with Iran was advertised as a display of overwhelming American power: fast, decisive, controlled and necessary. President Donald Trump called it a short “excursion” into the Middle East. Its stated purpose was to deny Iran a nuclear weapon, cripple its ability to threaten the region and demonstrate once again that the United States could project military force wherever it chose. 

Seven months later, that sales pitch is collapsing under the weight of events.

The United States may have inflicted extraordinary damage on Iranian military assets. Its naval forces may have destroyed major elements of Iran’s fleet; its air power may have eliminated facilities, bases and infrastructure; its blockade may be exerting punishing pressure on Iran’s economy. But military success cannot be measured solely by the destruction visible in satellite images or announced at podiums in Washington.

The essential question is whether the war has made the United States more secure, more credible and more capable of defending its interests. By that measure, the available evidence points in the opposite direction.

The hurried removal of American B-1 bombers from Britain following credible intelligence of planned Iranian-backed drone attacks is not a routine aircraft movement, whatever the administration initially claimed. It is a strategic signal. American forces were compelled to pull valuable assets away from a location that was presumed to be secure, after a threat emerged from operatives positioned beyond the perimeter of the base itself.

That is not deterrence. It is adaptation under pressure.

Iran’s Asymmetric Answer

Iran does not need to defeat the United States in a conventional war. It does not need to match American aircraft, warships, missiles or military spending. It only needs to make the cost of American deployment too high, too dangerous and too politically unsustainable.

That is what drones, sabotage networks, cyberattacks and dispersed proxy forces are designed to do.

The war has exposed an uncomfortable truth for Washington: American military superiority does not automatically guarantee freedom of movement. Bases that once served as symbols of U.S. reach can become targets. Runways, fuel depots, command centers, barracks and logistics hubs can be placed under threat not only from ballistic missiles, but from comparatively cheap drones and cyber operations.

A drone does not need to sink an aircraft carrier or destroy an entire air base to succeed. It need only force commanders to relocate aircraft, evacuate personnel, increase security, suspend missions, spend heavily on defenses or stretch supply routes across vast distances.

Each retreat creates a new operational burden. Each evacuation tells adversaries that U.S. personnel and equipment are vulnerable. Each relocation imposes costs in time, fuel, manpower, logistics and political credibility.

Iran may have suffered enormous conventional losses, but it has found a way to reshape the battlefield around American weaknesses.

The Retreat From Forward Presence

Reports that U.S. personnel have been withdrawn from facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere should be treated with the seriousness they deserve. These are not remote outposts of marginal value. They have formed the backbone of U.S. power projection in the Persian Gulf for decades.

If key bases are damaged beyond immediate use, abandoned or moved farther from Iran, the consequences extend well beyond this war.

American aircraft flying from the continental United States must travel enormous distances before entering the theater. That means more refueling, more maintenance, longer mission timelines and fewer available sorties. Naval vessels forced to depend on supply lines extending to Diego Garcia, more than 2,000 miles away, face a vastly more difficult logistical environment.

Military power is not only about possessing sophisticated weapons. It is about sustaining operations. It is about moving fuel, food, spare parts, ammunition and personnel safely and reliably. It is about maintaining access to bases, ports and airspace. When that infrastructure is threatened or displaced, military power becomes slower, more expensive and less certain.

The United States may still be able to strike Iran. But the question is how long it can keep doing so at rising cost, with declining stockpiles of munitions and an increasingly stretched global force posture.

The Cost of Political Fantasy

The most troubling part of this episode is not merely the operational difficulty. It is the administration’s apparent refusal to speak honestly about it.

A president is entitled to argue that a war is necessary. He is entitled to claim that military operations are succeeding. But he is not entitled to dismiss every adverse fact as “fake news,” every report of shortages as disloyalty, and every account of strategic setbacks as enemy propaganda.

That is not leadership. It is the politics of denial.

The Global public has a right to know whether the objectives of this war remain achievable, whether they have changed, how many lives have been lost, how much has been spent, whether military equipment can be replaced at the rate it is being consumed, and what the end state is meant to be.

Is the goal regime change? Is it permanent containment? Is it the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capacity? Is it a negotiated settlement? Or is the administration simply hoping that the conflict will somehow resolve itself after the next election?

Wars do not end because politicians predict that they will. They end because one side achieves clear objectives, because both sides reach a negotiated settlement, or because the human, military and economic costs force a change in policy.

.A Superpower Must Face Reality

There is a profound difference between launching a war and successfully concluding one.

The United States has unmatched military capabilities, but it cannot bomb its way out of every strategic dilemma. It cannot rely indefinitely on public relations to cover operational setbacks. And it cannot preserve international credibility by declaring victory while its forces are repeatedly moved farther away from the battlefield.

The danger is not simply that Iran has proved more resilient than expected. The danger is that Washington may stumble into a prolonged war of attrition without admitting that the original assumptions have failed.

A nation capable of confronting hard realities is stronger than one governed by slogans. An independent press that reports setbacks is not undermining the country; it is performing a democratic duty. The real threat to national security is not scrutiny. It is a leadership culture that mistakes criticism for betrayal and propaganda for strategy.

If this war began as a projection of American power, it is increasingly becoming a test of American judgment

And judgment, not bravado, will determine how it ends.

 

They Abandoned the Vehicle—Now They Want to Drive It

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

 They Abandoned the Vehicle—Now They Want to Drive It

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Several readers from across Guyana’s political spectrum have asked for my considered view on the growing calls for opposition parties,  labor groups, and civic-minded actors to form a united national coalition. Proponents argue that such a collective may be necessary to counter what they see as an increasingly authoritarian, disconnected, and unaccountable PPP-C administration—amid persistent allegations of corruption, official overreach, and a worsening cost-of-living crisis.

As an independent and apolitical observer, choosing to address the opposition parties as the people’s representatives ,I offer the following perspectives not as an endorsement of any party or personality, but as a pragmatic contribution to a discussion that deserves serious national attention and debate.

Cooperation Cannot Be a One-Way Street making the case for principled cooperation while challenging selective silence and backdoor political bargaining.

Let there be no misunderstanding: WIN must reject every attempt by opportunistic power seekers to enter through the back door of the mandate that Guyanese voters gave to WIN through the front door of the ballot box.

The parties now speaking of “cooperation,” “collective leadership” and shadow positions had every opportunity to stand with WIN when democratic principles were under attack. They could have raised their voices against WIN’s exclusion from GECOM representation; demanded that duly elected WIN representatives in Region Ten be allowed to take office; and insisted that the largest opposition bloc be included in constitutional reform discussions. Too often, they chose silence.

They abandoned the vehicle when it was travelling through the hardest road. Now that WIN has built momentum, secured the largest opposition mandate and emerged as the principal voice confronting the Government, they want to climb aboard, seize the steering wheel and claim credit for a journey they refused to make.

That is not cooperation. It is rank opportunism 

WIN should remain open to principled, issue-based collaboration with anyone prepared to defend democracy, electoral fairness, accountability and the rights of all Guyanese. But no political party is entitled to portfolios, titles, influence or legitimacy merely because it now sees WIN’s mandate as a route back to relevance.

Cooperation must be earned through courage, consistency and public action—not requested as a reward for silence. WIN must stand resolute, protect the mandate of its supporters, and reject every backdoor attempt to dilute, capture or exploit the movement voters entrusted to lead the Opposition.

The latest proposal that WIN should assemble a broad “Government-in-Waiting” by distributing shadow portfolios and senior roles among APNU-PNC, AFC and the Forward Guyana Movement is not a serious roadmap for democratic renewal. It is an attempt to use WIN’s electoral mandate to restore relevance to political actors who have not demonstrated the same willingness to defend that mandate when democracy itself is under pressure.

The issue is not whether the Opposition should cooperate. Of course it should. Guyana’s democracy, public finances, electoral system and institutions are too important for any responsible political movement to reject principled cooperation.

But cooperation cannot mean that WIN is expected to provide legitimacy, office, visibility and political rescue to others, while those same actors remain silent when WIN is excluded, undermined or denied its lawful place in the democratic architecture of the country.

WIN was elected as the largest opposition bloc. The Leader of the Opposition carries a mandate from the electorate, not an obligation to become the political rehabilitation center for organizations whose support has collapsed or whose voices are absent when national issues demand courage.

Silence on GECOM Is Telling

The question of the Guyana Elections Commission is a national democratic emergency. The present composition of GECOM continues to reflect an outdated political reality, while WIN—the largest opposition force—has no commissioner representing its constituency or its legitimate interests.

That arrangement should concern every political party claiming to support electoral democracy. It should concern every organization that speaks of free and fair elections. It should concern the diplomatic community, regional bodies and international observers who have repeatedly insisted that democratic institutions must be credible, balanced and trusted by the public.

Yet where is the sustained advocacy from APNU-PNC, AFC and FGM?

APNU-PNC must demonstrate a genuine commitment to a renewed political order by first decisively breaking with the old one. Guyana is now an oil-resource-rich republic, and its political, economic and social realities have shifted dramatically.

There is no room for antiquated ideology, entrenched intransigence or leadership models that belong to another era.

The party must clear its slate, renew its leadership culture and present fresh, credible ideas suited to the demands of modern Guyana. Renewal cannot be merely a slogan offered at election time; it must be visible in the people chosen to lead, the policies advanced, the communities engaged and the courage shown when democratic principles are under attack.

FGM and AFC, too, must prove that they can adapt to this new political dispensation and sustain meaningful advocacy. Standing with the people requires more than occasional social-media snippets, convenient statements or commentary from the sidelines.

The condition of the nation demands consistent public engagement, visible grassroots work, clear policy positions and a willingness to confront wrongdoing wherever it occurs.

Anything less is political theatre.

Where are their public statements demanding that GECOM’s opposition representation be regularized in a manner consistent with the current parliamentary and electoral reality? Where are the joint letters, the public campaigns, the legal interventions, the parliamentary motions and the collective pressure?

There has been no comparable national mobilization. Instead, those who now speak freely about “cooperation” and a collective shadow cabinet appear comfortable with a structure in which WIN is denied representation while others continue to benefit from arrangements inherited from a previous era.

That silence is not harmless. Silence permits democratic distortion to become normal. Silence creates the impression that exclusion is acceptable once it does not affect one’s own political interest.

No party can credibly demand a share of WIN’s political legitimacy while refusing to fight for WIN’s basic democratic representation.

Region Ten Cannot Be Ignored

The reported efforts to prevent duly elected WIN officials in Region Ten from assuming their respective offices raise another grave issue of governance. If elected representatives can be obstructed, excluded or delayed through political maneuvering, then the question is larger than any party. It becomes a question of whether the result of an election will be honored only when it pleases the Government.

That is not a narrow WIN matter. It is a test of local democracy, the rule of law and the integrity of Guyana’s representative institutions.

Those who claim to believe in coalition politics should have been at the forefront of demanding clarity, lawful process and respect for the will of voters. They should have demanded that no elected official be denied office through administrative gamesmanship or partisan interference.

Instead, WIN has been left to carry the fight virtually alone.

A political movement cannot remain on the sidelines when another opposition party is being excluded today, then appear tomorrow seeking office, shadow portfolios and national visibility. The democratic principle must be defended when it is difficult—not only when a political reward may follow.

Exclusion from Constitutional Reform 

The issue of WIN’s absence from the Constitutional Reform Commission is equally serious. Constitutional reform is not a private club for the Government and a selected group of politically convenient participants. It goes to the heart of how Guyana distributes power, protects rights, strengthens institutions, safeguards elections and prevents abuse.

Excluding the largest opposition bloc from that process damages its legitimacy before the work is even complete.

A constitutional reform exercise without meaningful representation from the largest parliamentary opposition is not inclusive reform. It is managed reform. It risks becoming an exercise in producing predetermined outcomes rather than a genuine national compact

Once again, where has been the public resistance from those now calling for a united opposition structure? Why have parties that seek senior positions in a hypothetical shadow government not made WIN’s inclusion in the constitutional reform process a clear and non-negotiable demand?

If the constitutional future of Guyana can be shaped without WIN, then those who remain silent have no standing to lecture WIN about partnership.

No Backdoor Route to Relevance

The electoral facts cannot be wished away. The people rejected the old formulas, the tired personalities and the politics of entitlement. WIN secured the largest opposition mandate because a significant section of Guyanese wanted a force that would challenge the Government directly, insist on accountability and reject business as usual.

APNU-PNC, AFC and FGM have the right to organize, speak, contest elections and earn the trust of the people. They also have the right to participate in public debate and support causes that advance democracy.

But none has an automatic right to a share of WIN’s mandate.

A shadow cabinet cannot become a backdoor route through which rejected or weakened political organizations regain relevance without doing the difficult work of rebuilding their own relationship with the electorate. Nor should senior positions be treated as consolation prizes for parties whose public support, organizational reach and current advocacy do not justify such roles.

Political legitimacy cannot be negotiated into existence in private meetings. It must be earned in public.

Backdoor politics has failed repeatedly, in Guyana and around the world. Arrangements designed among political elites, rather than built through accountability to voters, almost always weaken the very movement they are supposed to strengthen. They create confusion, conflict, divided messaging and mistrust among supporters.

Most dangerously, they hand the PPP a ready-made argument: that WIN is simply being absorbed into the same old political establishment that voters sought to reject.

WIN must not walk into that trap.

Cooperation Has Conditions

WIN should not reject cooperation. It should define it.

Any party, civic organisation, union, professional body or citizen who wants to work with WIN on democratic reform should be welcomed—but the cooperation must begin with action, not demands for titles.

Before there can be any conversation about coordinated parliamentary structures, shadow ministries or collective opposition arrangements, there must be demonstrated commitment to the issues that affect the democratic rights of WIN voters and, by extension, all Guyanese.

The minimum conditions are clear:

♦ A public and sustained demand for a reformed GECOM structure that reflects the present electoral and parliamentary reality, including fair opposition representation for WIN.

♦ Joint action to ensure that duly elected WIN officials in Region Ten are permitted to assume office without political obstruction or administrative manipulation.

♦ An unequivocal call for WIN’s meaningful inclusion in the Constitutional Reform Commission and all major national reform processes.

♦ A shared campaign for transparency, constitutionalism, electoral integrity, accountable government and equal treatment under the law.

♦ A commitment to public advocacy, parliamentary action and lawful democratic pressure—not quiet diplomacy when visibility is useful and silence when courage is required.

These are not unreasonable demands. They are the minimum standards of democratic solidarity.

A party cannot ask WIN to stand shoulder to shoulder with it in a shadow cabinet while refusing to stand beside WIN when the democratic rights of WIN supporters are being denied.

Questions for the Diplomatic Community

The diplomatic community must also answer difficult questions.

Representatives of foreign missions, international organizations and other external partners regularly speak about democracy, inclusion, institutional integrity and consensus. We are told that they have held meetings with opposition actors, civic groups and political stakeholders. Yet WIN, as the largest opposition bloc, has reportedly been excluded from or marginalized in some of these engagements.

That cannot be reconciled with the stated commitment to inclusion.

It is not enough for diplomats to meet familiar political faces, engage convenient “outliers,” or maintain relationships built around old political structures. If the purpose of their engagement is to support democracy and national dialogue, then the country’s largest opposition force cannot be an afterthought.

The diplomatic community should state clearly:

♦ Does it recognize that WIN’s absence from GECOM representation raises a serious question of democratic legitimacy?

♦ Has it raised the Region Ten issue and demanded respect for the rights of duly elected WIN officials?

♦ Has it called for WIN’s inclusion in the Constitutional Reform Commission?

♦ When it meets opposition parties or civil-society actors, why is the Leader of the Opposition and the largest opposition bloc not consistently included?

♦ Will it insist that dialogue on democracy includes those who carry the current mandate of opposition voters?

Diplomacy that excludes the principal opposition voice is not neutral. It has consequences. It risks reinforcing outdated structures, rewarding political convenience and giving legitimacy to a process from which a substantial section of the electorate is shut out.

WIN does not seek special treatment. It demands equal treatment, democratic recognition and respect for the mandate entrusted to it by voters.

The Mandate Must Be Protected

The Leader of the Opposition is right to be careful. A mandate hard won can be easily diluted by careless alliances, opportunistic appointments and arrangements that have no foundation in public trust.

WIN’s task is not to imitate the political culture that Guyanese have grown weary of. Its task is to build a modern opposition capable of governing: evidence-based, disciplined, inclusive, competent and fearless.

That means exposing wrongdoing with documents and facts. It means challenging corruption through lawful institutions. It means proposing credible solutions for oil wealth, jobs, wages, housing, health care, education, infrastructure and national unity. It means building a serious shadow structure around merit, integrity and public confidence—not around old party labels and political debt.

The country needs principled unity, but unity cannot be a disguise for personal ambition or a mechanism for distributing positions among political elites.

Those who want cooperation must first demonstrate solidarity. Those who want a role in a future Government-in-Waiting must first show that they can defend the democratic rights of the people today. WIN will cooperate where cooperation serves Guyana. But it must never be used as a ladder for those seeking to climb back into relevance through the back door.

Sensitivity, custody, leniency (Commodore Seeram)

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

 Sensitivity, custody, leniency (Commodore Seeram)

OPINION BY: GHK LALL October 2026

No objection!  There’s agreement with 592Guardian.  Mr. Daniel Seeram, Guyana’s Border Patrol Field Marshall has a right to move mountains and drain oceans in an effort to sidestep the pen post-conviction, presentencing.

  I make a point or two.  Not to deny Mr. Seeram his petition for liberty, but in support of those who don’t carry Mr. Seeram’s weight, nor have his access.  In this matter of sensitivity, custody, and leniency relative to Mr. Seeram’s welfare, state of mind, and his pivotal role on behalf of the Guyanese people, the following is submitted.  Not to thwart this fine Guyanese in his quest for freedom, but to layout in human terms.

If freedom for the Border Patrol commander today, who else tomorrow?  If his pleading is given friendly reception, then what about others in a similar court boat?  Or for lesser or greater circumstances.  I go down before I go up.

 The police constable in Georgetown, when under fire, could come up with a novel argument.  He must be on duty, it’s mandatory.  If not, Georgetown could be overrun by criminals bent on wreaking a world of havoc.  Sacking by Visigoths.                                                                        By the same token, the army lance corporal on guard at the Cuyuni River could make a claim identical to Mr. Seeram’s: if he has the book thrown at him, Venezuelan hordes could rampage across the border, and then what?  If for Mr. Seeram, then why not them?

The Community Policing Group man can be a must-have presence.  Locking away the sole breadwinner in a family can bring about starvation of its members.  A single parent imprisoned could contribute to a wayward child, juvenile delinquency.  In short, what Mr. Seeram seeks for himself, due to the primacy of his national role, can be applied to a whole host of situations involving lesser people and, perhaps, more consequentially.  I go higher.  A minister could claim monopoly rights over his portfolio due to unique skills.  A permanent secretary could swear to some extraordinary loyalty.  An agency head, or head of department, could submit testimony favorable to his or her cause. 

Genuine, compelling, claims not to be in jail, because of the exposure to Guyana.  Bottom line: go low, go high, Mr. Seeram has a lot of company re those who could legitimately qualify to be out of jail, using his representations, different circumstances.  Where does this stop?  Who doesn’t make the grade for sympathetic consideration?  Now I go still further.

The Border Patrol, to take a leaf out of the 592Guardian book, has to have bench strength, contingency for emergency, so that there is continuity, without anyone detecting a difference.  I remind Mr. Seeram of this truism: no man is indispensable.  In the abrupt and unfortunate development that someone drops dead on the job, the work still must go on.  I go back almost 100 years to remind fellow Guyanese of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt who did just that and two atomic bombs were still detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.    In war and peace, a good border manager has in place just the right arrangements for such any eventuality.

Moreover, it was reported that, as part of his petition, Mr. Seeram meets with Mr. Ali, Guyana’s president, once weekly as a matter of routine.  Pres Ali could be guilty of a major mental lapse, if all he is comfortable with for management of Guyana’s hot-and cold borders is Mr. Seeram.  Suppose he has a change of heart, a rush of blood to the head, and decides to return to the PNC, or from wherever he came?  Look, I am not that stonehearted that I don’t empathize with Mr. Seeram in his precarious situation (in more ways than one). 

But, as a practical matter, the relief he is seeking would empty the jails, leave prison wardens with time for mischief.

Last, I recommend that Minister Vindya Persaud, she of gender care and compassion, files a court brief.  The hon minister has a choice: the battered wife, or the Seeram-controlled border.  Politics or pain inflicted.  PPP-style justice, or what applies universally, without fear or friends, when a felony occurred.  No bail was the right decision.

Nobel Peace Prize 2026: A Victory for Law Over Power

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

 Nobel Peace Prize 2026: A Victory for Law Over Power

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar 2026

Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize is more than a tribute to an extraordinary jurist. It is a declaration that, at a time when powerful states increasingly treat international law as optional, the world still needs principled people willing to insist that human dignity, accountability, and justice are not negotiable.

The award of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay is a richly deserved honor for a South African lawyer whose life’s work has been inseparable from the struggle for human dignity, racial equality and international justice.

Pillay did not build her reputation in the comfort of institutions detached from human suffering. She emerged from apartheid South Africa, where law was routinely used as an instrument of racial domination. As a lawyer, she defended anti-apartheid activists and political prisoners at a time when doing so required not only professional skill, but moral courage.

Her subsequent career has carried that same conviction onto the global stage. She has served as a judge at the International Criminal Court, as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2008 to 2014, and in other leading roles devoted to confronting genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and systemic abuses of power.

The Nobel Committee’s decision sends a necessary message: peace cannot rest solely on military strength, political convenience or the preferences of powerful governments. Durable peace requires law. It requires institutions capable of investigating atrocities.

It requires the willingness to apply legal principles consistently, whether the accused are weak states, armed groups, occupying powers or influential allies of the world’s strongest nations

That message is especially urgent today.

International legal institutions are under open attack. The International Criminal Court has faced political retaliation for investigating alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The United Nations system is routinely denounced when its findings become uncomfortable for governments that prefer impunity to scrutiny.

Too often, states invoke international law against their adversaries while rejecting it when it reaches their own conduct or that of their allies.Pillay’s recognition is therefore not merely an individual distinction. It is a rebuke to this growing culture of selective justice.

Her work in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including her leadership of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry, has placed her among those prepared to follow evidence and legal principle even when doing so invites political pressure. The commission’s conclusion that Israel committed genocide in Gaza made clear that international law must not be reduced to rhetoric deployed only against the politically vulnerable.

Whether addressing apartheid, genocide, unlawful occupation, torture, discrimination or attacks on civilians, Pillay has represented an essential proposition: no nation and no leader should stand above the law.

Her reported remark in Nuremberg that she might share the prize with Donald Trump if the applause continued was characteristically sharp, but the contrast behind it is serious. The Nobel Prize has been awarded to a jurist who has devoted her life to strengthening mechanisms of accountability, at a moment when international institutions face intimidation and sanctions from those who dislike their scrutiny.

That is what makes this award so significant.

For smaller countries, developing states and vulnerable populations, international law is not an academic exercise. It is often the only available restraint against raw power. When legal institutions are weakened, it is not the powerful who suffer first. It is civilians caught in wars, minorities facing persecution, dissidents confronting authoritarian rule and small nations navigating an increasingly hostile world.

This is why Guyana Must Choose Law Over Impunity

The award of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to South African jurist Navanethem “Navi” Pillay arrives at a critical moment for Guyana, where the public is increasingly being asked to watch the rule of law being tested, diminished and, in some instances, openly disregarded.

Pillay’s life has been a defense of a simple but indispensable principle: law must apply to everyone. It cannot operate only against the poor, the politically unconnected or the powerless, while those with influence, resources or institutional protection remain beyond its reach.

That principle is not abstract. It is the foundation of a functioning democracy.

In Guyana today, the public is confronted by troubling questions arising from the case involving Daniel Seeram. He was remanded last Friday, lost his High Court appeal on Monday, yet reportedly remains outside custody. Whatever the technical explanation may be, the responsible authorities owe the nation a prompt, clear and credible account of the legal status of the matter.

Was a warrant issued? Is there a stay of execution? Has a further appeal been filed? Has bail been granted? Which authority bears responsibility for ensuring that the court’s ruling is enforced? And if no lawful order permits his continued liberty, why has the judgment not been acted upon?

These are not minor procedural details. They go to the heart of whether court orders carry real force in Guyana.

A society cannot demand that ordinary citizens obey the law while appearing indifferent when a person who has lost a High Court appeal is not taken into custody.

The legitimacy of the justice system depends not merely on legal rulings being handed down, but on those rulings being implemented fairly, promptly and without fear or favor.

The uncomfortable perception is that Guyana has too often developed a two-tiered relationship with the law. There is one experience for citizens who are poor, unknown and unable to command official attention, and another for people who can draw upon connections, political protection or the slow-moving machinery of selective enforcement.

If that perception is allowed to deepen, public confidence will erode further. Citizens will conclude that justice is negotiable, that court decisions are mere suggestions, and that institutional power can override judicial authority. No democracy can thrive under those conditions.

That is why Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize deserves attention in Guyana.

Her recognition is a global affirmation that peace, stability and democracy depend on the rule of law—not the rule of convenience, influence or political calculation.

Pillay spent her career confronting systems that used law selectively or discarded it altogether when it stood in the way of power. From apartheid South Africa to international tribunals investigating genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, she has insisted that justice must be universal or it becomes an instrument of oppression.

Guyana should hear that message clearly.

The authorities must immediately clarify the status of Daniel Seeram’s case and disclose what steps, if any, are being taken to give effect to the High Court’s decision.

Silence, delay and ambiguity only strengthen public suspicion that equal justice remains elusive.

The rest of the world is being reminded, through Navi Pillay’s Nobel Prize, that international law and national jurisprudence matter. Guyana must decide whether it intends to be among those societies that respect court orders and uphold judicial independence—or one in which justice can be stalled, evaded and trampled when it becomes inconvenient.

The law must not only be pronounced. It must be enforced.

Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize should renew global commitment to an international order founded not on might, but on justice. It should remind governments that peace without accountability is only a pause between conflicts, and that human rights cannot depend on a victim’s nationality, religion, race or geopolitical usefulness

In honoring Pillay, the Nobel Committee has honored the belief that law can still be a shield for the powerless and a restraint on the powerful. That belief is under assault. It must not be allowed to fail.

A Government That Cannot Finish the First Audit Has No Business Expanding Exxon’s Oil Empire

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

A Government That Cannot Finish the First Audit Has No Business Expanding Exxon’s Oil Empire

OPINION BY :Hem Kumar 2026

The Government’s referral of the US $214 million ExxonMobil cost-recovery dispute to the International Chamber of Commerce is not evidence of firm stewardship. It is an overdue procedural step after more than five years of delay, indecision, and public evasion.

More than five years after Guyana was warned that ExxonMobil had placed  US $214million in questionable costs into the country’s petroleum cost bank, the Government of Guyana has finally admitted that it cannot even agree with the company on the appointment of a sole expert.

The matter is now before the International Chamber of Commerce, which will appoint the expert under Article 26 of the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement.

This is not a victory for Guyana. It is a confession of administrative weakness.

A government entrusted with the stewardship of one of the world’s most valuable oil discoveries has been unable to bring the first major Exxon audit to a conclusion. The audit covers expenses from 1999 to 2017,  years before first oil, and involves US $1.6 billion claimed by ExxonMobil. British consultant IHS Markit completed its report in March 2021. It concluded that Guyana had reasonable grounds to dispute US $214.4million, plus applicable overhead adjustments.

Yet, in October 2026, Guyana remains without a final determination.

The first audit is still unresolved. The second audit, involving US $7.2 billion in costs for 2018 to 2020 reportedly identified a further US $65 million in questionable charges. The third and largest audit, covering a staggering US $19.6billion, was reportedly submitted to Government since May 2025, but its contents remain hidden from the public.

That record is indefensible.

The Government Cannot Have It Both Ways

The administration wants Guyanese to believe that it is carefully safeguarding national revenue while, at the same time, it continues to facilitate the relentless expansion of ExxonMobil’s operations offshore.

New projects proceed. New production capacity is approved. New wells are drilled. New fields are developed. More oil is extracted. More revenues flow. And, critically, more costs are accumulated for Guyana to reimburse before the country receives its share of profit oil.

Every new development approval potentially enlarges the cost bank. Every approved project creates new opportunities for cost escalation, questionable allocations, and expenses that may later become disputed. Yet the State has demonstrated that it lacks either the will, the urgency, or the institutional capacity to resolve even the first major cost-recovery audit.

That should alarm every Guyanese.

A government that cannot settle a US $ 214 million dispute from the earliest audit period cannot credibly assure the country that it is effectively policing billions upon billions of dollars in later ExxonMobil expenditures. If the administration cannot close out an audit involving US $1.6 billion, what confidence should the public have in its oversight of the more than US $26 billion covered by the subsequent audits?

This is not a technical inconvenience. It is a direct threat to Guyana’s national patrimony.

The Cost of Delay Is Paid by Guyanese

Under the Production Sharing Agreement, ExxonMobil and its partners can recover eligible petroleum expenses from oil revenues before profits are shared. Therefore, every dollar that is improperly charged, insufficiently examined, or improperly allowed into the cost bank is a dollar that reduces Guyana’s available profit oil.

The US $214 million dispute is not merely an accounting entry. It represents money that could support hospitals, schools, drainage, sea defense, roads, water systems, electricity upgrades, housing, wages, and local economic development.

And that is before considering the wider implications of the unresolved audit process.

The longer the Government delays, the more difficult the accountability exercise becomes. Personnel change. Records become harder to interrogate. Corporate structures evolve. Projects multiply. The volume of claims grows exponentially. An administration that cannot establish a prompt, transparent, and credible system for audit resolution is creating conditions under which the country’s financial exposure will deepen year after year.

The public is being asked to accept assurances while being denied documents.

Why has the full US $7.2 billion audit not been clearly and comprehensively published? Why has the Government withheld the US $19.6 billion audit report received since May 2025 ? What specific costs were disputed? What was ExxonMobil’s response? Which sums were accepted, reduced, rejected, or carried forward? What steps has the Government taken to protect Guyana from further questionable cost recovery?

These are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions that any responsible government must answer.

EPA Has a Responsibility Too

The Environmental Protection Agency cannot behave as though environmental permits exist in a vacuum, detached from the wider public-interest obligations surrounding petroleum development.

The EPA has authority through its permitting and approval functions. It assesses applications for new developments, production activities, environmental authorizations, modifications, and compliance requirements. It can impose conditions, demand information, require compliance with applicable laws and permits, and ensure that decisions serve the public interest.

Before additional projects, fields, and production expansions are approved, the country must be satisfied that the State has an effective system to monitor the financial consequences of those approvals.

It is not responsible governance to permit a continuous escalation of extraction while the Government remains incapable of resolving the foundational dispute over whether hundreds of millions of United States dollars were properly charged to Guyana in the first place.

No responsible regulator should ignore the fact that each new approval can increase the scale of cost recovery and the complexity of oversight. The EPA, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Guyana Revenue Authority, the Ministry of Finance, and every other relevant agency must understand that weak financial oversight undermines the national interest just as surely as weak environmental oversight does.

Guyana cannot afford a regulatory system that approves first and audits later—especially when “later” means five years, six years, or perhaps never. We need to let Exxon know that it is our priority to clear up  the fiscal backlog before any further approvals.

This Is Administrative Failure

Article 26 of the petroleum agreement is clear. If the parties cannot agree on a sole expert within 30 days, the ICC is to appoint one. The expert should then seek to provide an opinion within 30 days of appointment, and no later than 60 days.

Yet the Government allowed the selection process itself to drag on for more than a year, long after the contractual timeline had expired. The public deserves an explanation for this delay.

Who proposed the experts? Which candidates were rejected? Why were they rejected? Did the Government invoke the ICC process immediately after the deadline elapsed? If not, why not? What instructions were given to the Government’s legal and technical teams? How much money has Guyana spent managing this dispute? What is the Government’s final position on each component of the US $214.4 million in questioned costs?

These questions go to competence, transparency, and accountability.

The administration cannot continue to shelter behind vague statements that it is “working with Exxon” or that the matter is “before the ICC.” Guyanese have heard these formulations for years while the oil sector expands at breathtaking speed.

A strong government would have pursued a swift resolution, published the audit reports, explained the disputed sums, reported regularly to the public, strengthened its audit and legal capacity, and ensured that new project approvals were accompanied by enforceable safeguards.

Instead, the country has been given secrecy, delay, procedural drift, and reassurance without documentation.

Guyana Must Demand a Moratorium on Further Approvals

The Government must immediately publish the complete audit reports for the 2018–2020 and  subsequent audit periods, including the findings, disputed costs, ExxonMobil’s responses, and the Government’s determinations.

It must also disclose the full record of the US $214 million dispute and commit to public updates once the ICC appoints the sole expert.

Most importantly, the Government and EPA should pause approvals for new ExxonMobil field developments and major production expansions until Guyana can demonstrate that it has a functioning, transparent, timely, and independent audit-resolution mechanism.

This is not a call to shut down the petroleum sector. It is a demand that Guyana stop governing its most valuable resource through blind trust, delayed audits, and secret reports.The country cannot continue granting access to new oil wealth while remaining unable to determine whether ExxonMobil was entitled to recover money from Guyana’s first bill.

Every new project approved before this accountability crisis is corrected sends the same troubling message: ExxonMobil’s expansion is urgent, but Guyana’s oversight is optional.

That is not partnership. It is surrender.

The PPP administration must choose whether it will act as a guardian of Guyana’s petroleum wealth or as a passive bystander while the country’s inheritance is placed beyond meaningful scrutiny.

 

An Inquiry That Cannot Reach Its Own Evidence

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

 An Inquiry That Cannot Reach Its Own Evidence

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

On Wednesday the Chairman of the MV Barima Commission told the country that the Commission is “not an arm of the Government.” Within hours, answering a question on raising the ferry, he said orally that this lies outside the Commission’s powers. Those statements are strong on the language of independence and thin on mechanisms. Most of the red flags are in what it leaves out.

Both cannot comfortably describe a body whose job is to establish what sank a vessel. Independence is not something an inquiry declares. It is something it holds, and it is measured by three things: control of its evidence, its record, and its report. On its first day the Commission held none of them.

Independence is not something an inquiry declares. It is something it holds.

The Evidence

The wreck is the central exhibit. The Commission says it cannot award the salvage contract or vet the contractor. Yet Dr Jasionowski told families he has met the salvage team personally, expects daily reports from it, and named BK International before any government announcement did. The NPTAB has since confirmed the award. Royston Frank, who lost his son Rawle, a crew member, put the families’ position plainly: they “don’t know nothing that is going on.”

A body that disclaims authority over the salvage while sitting inside its information loop has the worst of both positions. It cannot protect the evidence, and it will be tied to whatever happens to it. We have argued that the Commission should hold binding approval over any contractor. It now says it does not. So the questions fall to the Government and the NPTAB. Who bid, at what price, on what evaluation, and what did the board see? We have documented a pre-tender invitation to a different contractor and a sealed bidder list. The public has not been told how that process ended in this award.

The Commission is right that it cannot freeze its other work while the vessel lies on the seabed. It also deserves credit on scope. The Chairman told families that institutions responsible for ferry services will be examined for systemic failure, and fleet-wide document requests have gone out. But those requests were sent only last week, ten weeks after the swearing-in, while the stated goal of “about six months” runs against an exhibit still underwater.

The Record

The opening statement says the Rules of Procedure have been adopted and published. Three pages later it concedes that the website is not ready and that the Terms of Reference and Rules can be had by emailing the Secretary, at a Gmail address on the letterhead. Both cannot be true. A public inquiry that asks the public to email for its own mandate has no public record yet. Hearings open on Wednesday, October 14. The record must exist before the first witness does.

The Report

The statement says the report will be delivered “to him,” the President. It makes no promise that the report, or any interim recommendation, will ever be published or tabled. The President appointed all five commissioners alone, and the Secretary who runs witness intake and standing applications has links we have already documented.

The Chairman asks the public to trust the process. A process whose findings travel to one reader, with no disclosure commitment, gives the public little to trust.

What the Statement Leaves Out

It names two departments, not the ministry above them or the ministers who answered for them. It says nothing of the three crew members charged two days before the Commission was sworn in, or of how that prosecution will interact with the evidence the Commission needs. It offers no declarations of interest. And ten weeks on, no credible source has confirmed how many people were aboard, so the toll is reported as dozens confirmed dead, more than thirty missing, and by some accounts more than a hundred in all. The Commission’s own scope lists passenger numbers and manifests. It should say when it will publish a verified count.

None of this proves the outcome is fixed. The Chairman says he has no predetermined view, and the test of that is conduct. So we set the test now.

Our Demands

  • Publish the Terms of Reference, Rules of Procedure, Presidential Order and all instrument dates before Wednesday’s hearing.
  • Commit in writing to publish the final report, and any interim recommendations, in full on receipt.
  • Publish declarations of interest from all five commissioners and the Secretary. Commissioner Alfonso should state on the record whether she or her firm has any relationship with BK International or any other bidder, given her stated salvage experience.
  • Have the NPTAB and MARAD publish the bidders, prices, evaluation and award date for the salvage.
  • Place the recovery under a published chain-of-custody protocol, with independent observers and a family representative present.
  • Publish a verified account of everyone aboard: the dead, the rescued and the missing.

Until they do publish the above requested , we will deem the Commission’s inquiry not as formal  proceedings but as mere performance.

— The Board

Routledge and duty not owed: firing Guyana’s soul -Pt III

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

Routledge and duty not owed: firing Guyana’s soul -Pt III

 OPINION BY: GHK LALL October 2026

I look closer at Exxon’s Mr. Alistair Routledge, what he does for his company.  I look more sharply at what Guyana’s leaders do for this country.  Regrettably, it’s what they don’t do.  From which they keep the safest, farthest distance.,

Mr. Routledge gives 150 percent daily for Exxon.  Fault him, flay him, his efforts resonate for Exxon.  What he committed to, he delivers.  He came armed to Guyana.  A hard-as-nails, unbending Exxon badman.  He hasn’t disappointed.  Guyanese don’t have to like him, but must regard his body of work for Exxon.  His manifesto fulfilled.  Accomplished his mission.  I salute a corporate soldier.  He knows when to lie low; when to go public.  He has used silence; has used public relations to Exxon’s advantage.  This man has represented Exxon very well.  From my perspective: too well.  Shared publicly is what I think of Mr. Routledge’s unflagging efforts to represent and protect Exxon’s interests in Guyana.  Summary: Mr. Routledge is neither friend nor ally of Guyanese.  But someone to recognize.  I do.

It’s time for Guyanese leaders.  There is no comparison; they don’t belong in the same conversation. No standing.  They command no respect.  They display neither rigor nor vigor, possess neither adaptability nor attributes to represent Guyanese with boldness and zealousness.  However, not one of those is a fatal obstacle to lifting the soul of this nation.  The PPP Govt must be honest, the first mandatory requirement.  The Ali-Jagdeo axis must be genuinely committed to Guyana’s flag, cause.  They must learn from Alistair Routledge.  How he represents corporate interests, they copy from his book and represent this country’s interests.  How Mr. Routledge claws his way towards what benefits Exxon’s constituents, so also must Messrs. Ali and Jagdeo claw for what maximizes Guyanese benefits.  Begone the emasculation of sanctity.  Sanctity has its place.  There are ways to manage it.

Mr. Routledge has deployed the provisions in Exxon’s contract to the company’s advantage, so the Ali-Jagdeo tag team (heavyweight and featherweight) must use policies and procedures built into Guyana’s watchdog agencies for an edge.  Interpret expansively.  Exxon has its contract.  Guyana has its EPA and GRA.  Instead of muzzling them, handicapping them, find ways to utilize them.  Dr. Jagdeo is wily enough.  Rethink how Mr. Nandlall is deployed. 

Imagine how these few first steps could lift the soul of a sluggish nation.  The PPP Govt cannot continue to giveaway Guyana’s wealth on a platter to Exxon, while Guyanese masses are without a plate.

When Mr. Routledge resorts to delay and protective strategies (audits, reserves), the Ali-Jagdeo crew demonstrates how much they learned by using the same cards.  When Mr. Rouledge, with Woods and board backing, can be bold and brazen, Ali and Jagdeo must manifest that they aren’t unschooled in those attributes, either.  When he projects subterfuges, they prove they are no slouches in that department, too.  Drs. Ali and Jagdeo cannot go toe-to-toe with Woods and Routledge.  Guyana loses.  But when the Ali-Jagdeo partnership manifests the sagacity and perspicacity (one’s a painting, the other a disaster) of genuine patriots, then Alistair Routledge is reduced to a toothpick.  Especially with Guyana having the homefield advantage. 

Again, envision the lifting and inspiration to the soul of this nation.  From docile Guyanese to determined Guyanese.  From passive and prostate natives, to potent patriots.

The spirit is there.  Suppressed by the PPP using sanctity of contract as its national castration instrument.  No exploratory inspections made.  No courage, only guile.  How to use Guyana’s institutional strengths to influence Exxon differently.  How to rally restless Guyanese.  Have them stand in Ogle and Duke Street, and get Guyana’s message across.  For a cause.  For patrimony.  For the soul of Guyana found, inspired, lifted to its natural height.  To date, the PPP Govt has operated like a punk and made Guyanese into pushovers, the country a laughingstock. 

When Mr. Alistair Routledge drew his line in the sand (we have no duty…), it is time for Excellencies Ali, Jagdeo, Nandlall to stand up and show Guyanese, show the world, the kind of men they can be.  Their duty now is to inspire the soul of this nation in response to Mr. Routledge’s frank, unavoidable, unacceptable truth(s).

A Candidacy Undone by Its Own Words

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 A Candidacy Undone by Its Own Words

OPINION BY :Hem Kumar October 2026

Guyana’s UN Envoy’s  latest intervention is not the mark of a principled diplomat rising above politics. It is the reflex of a candidate whose judgment, restraint and understanding of the office she seeks are now seriously in doubt.

Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett’s declaration that, if her conduct and pronouncements are used against her candidacy for United Nations Secretary-General, “we will see where the UN is heading,” is as revealing as it is alarming.

It is not the language of a diplomat seeking to build consensus across a fractured world. It is not the language of a prospective Secretary-General who must command the confidence of competing powers, divided regions and states with deeply conflicting national interests. It is the language of confrontation—an unmistakable drawing of a line in the sand by someone who appears to have forgotten that diplomacy requires the capacity to work the entire field.

The Secretary-General cannot be a partisan standard-bearer for one bloc, one ideology or one set of preferred conflicts. The office demands discipline, balance, discretion and a demonstrable commitment to applying international law consistently—not selectively, loudly and politically when the issue is Gaza, but quietly or not at all when grave human-rights concerns arise closer to home.

Rodrigues-Birkett says every word she uttered was spoken on behalf of Guyana and its Government. That admission makes the problem more—not less—serious. A candidate for the UN’s highest office must demonstrate independence of mind and the moral authority to confront abuses wherever they occur. She cannot credibly present herself as a global guardian of peace and international law while appearing unwilling to speak with comparable urgency about the suffering of Indigenous Guyanese in the recent tragedy in Region.1

Where was this same uncompromising conviction when an inordinate number of Indigenous citizens—people from her own wider Indigenous community—were caught up in the MV Barima tragedy? Where was the public insistence on accountability? Where was the international-law rhetoric? Where was the demand for transparent investigation, justice for victims, and consequences for those responsible?

The troubling contrast cannot be ignored. Gaza rightly deserves global concern, humanitarian protection and adherence to international law. But Indigenous lives in Guyana are not lesser lives. Their pain cannot be treated as politically inconvenient, locally manageable or unworthy of the same moral vocabulary that is deployed so forcefully on international platforms.

If genocide is the standard by which the Ambassador measures state conduct abroad, then alleged state-sponsored atrocities, abuses and failures of protection at home must also attract scrutiny of equal seriousness.

Human rights cannot be a foreign-policy accessory—worn prominently at the United Nations and discarded when it becomes uncomfortable for the Government one represents.

That is the fundamental indictment of this candidacy: inconsistency.

Rodrigues-Birkett seeks to lead an institution founded on universality, yet her public record increasingly suggests selective outrage. She seeks to be custodian of the UN Charter, yet her posture reflects political allegiance more than the detached, steady-handed leadership required to preserve dialogue among states that do not agree with her.

A Secretary-General must be able to speak to Israel without becoming a political antagonist; to speak to Palestine without diminishing Palestinian suffering; to engage Washington, Beijing, Moscow, African states, Caribbean nations and the Global South without converting the office into an ideological pulpit.

The task is not to win applause from one side of an international dispute. It is to keep every side at the table long enough to avert war, reduce suffering and create space for peace.

Rodrigues-Birkett’s response to concerns over her candidacy does not reassure. It suggests that those who question her suitability are somehow exposing a UN that has lost its way. But the question is not whether international law should be defended. Of course it should. The question is whether she possesses the impartiality, temperament and diplomatic breadth to lead the United Nations at its most perilous moment.

Her own words supply the answer.

She has demonstrated a penchant for partisanship where the office demands neutrality. She has adopted a confrontational public posture where the job requires persuasion. And she has failed to establish that her concern for human rights is equally urgent when the victims are Indigenous Guyanese and the scrutiny turns toward the administration whose policies she has represented.

The image now emerging is not of an independent global leader prepared to hold all power to account. It is of a political representative whose moral certainty rises in proportion to the distance between the crisis and the Government to which she owes her position.

That is not statesmanship. It is not principled multilateralism. And it is certainly not the standard required of a United Nations Secretary-General.

The 592 Guardian therefore states unequivocally:                

Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett is unfit for the top job at the United Nations. The world body needs a unifier, an honest broker and a defender of human dignity without geographic, racial, political or partisan qualification. Her record and her latest remarks show that she is not that leader.

She simply lacks the diplomatic statecraft, skill set, and temperament required to navigate the UN Secretariat effectively across its many distinct roles.

 

When Sentences Become Negotiable – for Govt Aligned Affiliates

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

 When Sentences Become Negotiable – for Govt Aligned Affiliates

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

Guyana cannot credibly proclaim the rule of law while court-ordered custody appears to become optional for persons believed to enjoy political protection. The unresolved detention of Kevon Lorrimer, coming amid public questions over Daniel Seeram’s custody, warrants immediate, documented answers—not denials, deflection, or silence.

But this is precisely why the matter is so consequential. When the state declines to provide a clear account of the custody of convicted and remanded affiliates , it creates the conditions in which suspicion flourishes and public faith in judicial independence deteriorates.  

The remedy is not rhetoric; it is transparent, verifiable disclosure and strict compliance with the court’s order.

The question is no longer only whether Daniel Seeram should receive bail. The High Court has ruled that his judicial-review application did not meet the required legal threshold, leaving the Magistrate’s remand order intact. In any jurisdiction governed by law rather than access, that should settle the immediate question of custody: a convicted man who has been remanded remains in lawful custody unless and until a competent court orders otherwise.

Yet the public is now confronted by an extraordinary uncertainty. If no evidence can be produced that Seeram has been admitted to the designated prison facility—or transferred to another lawful custodial location under a valid authority—the state must explain precisely where he is, under whose custody, and on what legal basis.

A remand order cannot become a suggestion when it concerns a man with a state appointment, proximity to power, or political value.

We must be careful with our language: unexplained custody arrangements do not, by themselves, prove executive interference. But silence, opacity and special administrative treatment are the fertile ground in which democratic decay takes root. Where court orders are visibly enforced against ordinary citizens but become uncertain when politically connected officials are involved, the law begins to acquire two faces—one stern for the powerless, another accommodating for the protected.

And where does this leave the aggrieved party? She is entitled not only to a guilty verdict, but to equal and meaningful execution of the orders that follow it. A victim impact statement cannot restore public confidence if the state cannot—or will not—show that the convicted man is being held in accordance with the court’s direction.

In a country that says it is confronting domestic violence and femicide, justice cannot end at conviction and dissolve in the corridors of custody.

This is not yet proof of autocracy. It is, however, a warning flare. The next phase of authoritarianism is not always announced by soldiers or suspended elections. Sometimes it begins when lawful orders become negotiable for the connected, when institutions refuse to account for their actions, and when women are left to wonder whether the law will protect them equally once power decides that accountability is inconvenient.

The gravest issue is not that either man has legal rights. Every accused and convicted person does. The issue is whether, after a court has spoken, there is a separate administrative channel through which politically connected individuals are cushioned from the consequences imposed on everyone else.

A nine-month prison sentence is not a recommendation. A remand order is not a polite request. Once the relevant warrant is issued and a convicted person is in police custody, the machinery of justice is expected to move: custody must be regularised, records maintained, and the person delivered to the lawful correctional authority to begin the sentence.

That is the ordinary expectation in any jurisdiction that claims fidelity to law.

The unresolved detention of Kevon Lorrimer, coming amid public questions over Daniel Seeram’s custody, warrants immediate, documented answers—not denials, deflection, or silence.

Yet the public has been told that Lorrimer—described as a governing-party activist in Linden—remained in police custody after being apprehended, despite having been sentenced in his absence more than two weeks earlier. Senior police officials reportedly could not explain the delay. If accurate, that is not a minor administrative oversight.

It raises the disturbing possibility that the execution of a criminal sentence can be delayed by influence rather than governed by law.

The matter cannot be examined in isolation. It comes against the background of serious public concern regarding the custodial status of Daniel Seeram, a senior state-security official convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm to his former wife and remanded pending sentencing.

In both matters, the public is not entitled to gossip or political theatre. It is entitled to records, timelines, lawful explanations and institutional accountability.

The authorities should answer, plainly:

♦ When was Lorrimer arrested, and under what warrant?

♦ When was the Prison Service notified that he was in custody?

♦ Was a commitment warrant issued, and on what date?

♦ Why was he kept at a police facility rather than transferred promptly to the designated prison authority?

♦ Who made, authorized, or approved the decision to delay his transfer?

♦ Was any minister, political operative, senior police officer, or other state official involved in discussions concerning his custody?

♦ Has Lorrimer now been transferred to prison, and if so, precisely when?

♦ What written record exists to show that the sentence has been lawfully executed?

♦ In Seeram’s case, where is he being held, under what authority, and what records establish compliance with the court’s remand order?

These are not opposition questions. They are rule-of-law questions.

A government cannot treat criminal sentences as stern commands for the poor and inconveniences for its associates. When an ordinary Guyanese misses a court date, police action can be swift and unforgiving. Yet where there is political proximity, the country is asked to tolerate unexplained administrative delay, opaque custody arrangements and a silence that invites the very suspicion officials should be working to dispel.

That is how public faith is corroded. Not only by a court ruling overturned in dramatic fashion, but by smaller acts of institutional accommodation: the unexplained day in a police station, the delayed prison transfer, the unreturned call, the missing record, the official who says nothing because someone powerful may be displeased by the truth.

The victims and complainants in criminal matters are watching. So are women reporting domestic abuse. So are ordinary citizens who have learned, often painfully, that the law can be swift when it chooses. They deserve assurance that conviction has meaning and that an order of remand or imprisonment is not weakened by party colors, private access or political usefulness.

This pattern, if substantiated, does more than indict a government for favoritism. It places the professionalism of police officers, prison officers, court clerks and every public servant involved in the criminal-justice chain under a cruel and corrosive strain. It asks them to honour the law in public while accommodating exceptions in private. That is not administration. It is institutional degradation.

This  is a warning  that has far reaching implications beyond the borders of Guyana

International investors, development partners, diplomatic missions and businesses entering Guyana’s expanding economy should pay close attention—not because Guyana is beyond repair, but because legal predictability is the foundation of every serious investment environment.

Capital can tolerate many risks: market fluctuation, infrastructure gaps, commodity cycles and logistical challenges. What it cannot price easily is a system in which the practical operation of justice appears dependent on who has proximity to political power. Investors need confidence that contracts will be enforced, regulators will act consistently, disputes will be decided impartially, and court orders will not be selectively honored.

The message Guyana must send is not that powerful people can make inconvenience disappear. It must be that public authority is bound by law, that every court order is executed transparently, and that the police and Prison Service answer first to the Constitution—not to a party, a minister, or a politically useful friend.

If the Government believes the concerns are unfounded, it has the simplest remedy available: publish the lawful records, explain the timelines, identify the responsible authorities and demonstrate compliance with the courts.

Until then, every unexplained delay becomes a warning. Every missing answer becomes evidence of a system under strain. And every appearance of special treatment tells Guyanese—and the world—that justice may be blind only when it is looking at the powerless.

Guyana’s Development Bank: A public lender or the PPP’s electoral wallet?

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

 Guyana’s Development Bank: A public lender or the PPP’s electoral wallet?

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026 

Brazil’s first-round vote is a warning: economic progress is not enough

Brazil’s presidential election has delivered a chastening result for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He remains very much in contention ahead of the 25 October runoff. But Flávio Bolsonaro’s first-place finish, with roughly 47% to Lula’s 45%, has exposed the fragility of the incumbent’s political coalition and the enduring force of Bolsonarismo.

The immediate temptation is to treat this as a polling failure. That would be too easy. Polls broadly anticipated a close contest and a second round, even if they expected Lula to lead. The more important story is the apparent late movement of voters from smaller rightwing candidacies towards Bolsonaro—a strategic decision to concentrate opposition to Lula before the runoff rather than after it.

That shift changes the political atmosphere. Bolsonaro’s lead is narrow, but it gives him momentum, validates his campaign’s claim to represent an ascendant conservative bloc and raises the pressure on Lula to demonstrate that he can still expand beyond his existing base. The Liberal Party’s wider strength in congressional contests reinforces that message: this was not merely a personal result, but evidence of a resilient and organized right.

It would be wrong, however, to accept Bolsonaro’s success as a clean endorsement of renewal or probity. His campaign has prospered amid the Banco Master affair, a scandal that has implicated figures across Brazilian public life and intensified public distrust of institutions. Bolsonaro himself has faced allegations concerning money sought from the bank’s former owner for a film project about his father; he denies wrongdoing.

Brazil’s presidential election offers Guyana a warning that should not be ignored. The Banco Master scandal has shown how quickly a financial institution becomes politically toxic when private influence, public power and electoral ambition collide.

In Brazil, allegations involving bankers, politicians and senior judicial figures have deepened the public conviction that there is one system for ordinary citizens and another for the well connected.

Guyana is now building an institution that could either support genuine national development or entrench precisely that culture of political favour.

The Guyana Development Bank has been launched with the promise of zero-interest, zero-collateral loans—up to $3 million—for small businesses and citizens who cannot obtain conventional financing. Properly administered, that mission is defensible. Farmers, vendors, young entrepreneurs, manufacturers and struggling families need access to affordable capital. Commercial banks have too often treated small borrowers as risks rather than contributors to national growth. 

But public lending is never neutral where political power controls the gate.

The essential question is not whether Guyana needs a development bank. It does. The question is whether the PPP-C has created a national financial institution or a taxpayer-funded mechanism for political patronage in the run-up to the next election.

The answer lies in the governance structure.

The Finance Minister holds the power to appoint the bank’s directors, including the chairperson and deputy chairperson. There is no meaningful bipartisan process, no parliamentary confirmation, no independent appointments commission and no evident public test of whether candidates are politically neutral, professionally qualified or free from conflicts of interest.

That minister is not a disinterested administrator standing outside electoral politics. He is one of the most important figures in the PPP-C’s governing machinery and is widely viewed as a possible central figure in its next electoral configuration. He is therefore positioned as both driver and conductor of an institution that can distribute valuable state-backed benefits to thousands of voters

This is where the matter becomes grave.

The inaugural board does not project independence from the executive or the ruling party. Its composition includes persons publicly associated with the governing establishment, including a sitting PPP-C parliamentarian, a senior Finance Ministry official and a member of the President’s Youth Advisory Council.

No allegation of criminality is required to recognize the problem. The problem is structural: the bank begins its existence under the shadow of political alignment rather than public independence.

The government may insist that every appointee is qualified. That is beside the point. Public confidence depends not merely on competence, but on demonstrable independence. A development bank handling billions in public resources cannot resemble an extension of the ruling party, particularly when it offers loans that may be transformative to recipients and politically invaluable to those who can claim credit for them.

Zero-interest and zero-collateral loans are not ordinary benefits. They are extraordinary state concessions. They can rescue a business, create dependence, reward loyalty and generate a powerful sense of obligation. In the wrong hands, they are not development finance. They are patronage with an application form.

This is the point Guyana must absorb from Brazil. Corruption is not confined to cash-filled envelopes, kickbacks or a plainly illegal contract. It also exists in the quiet conversion of state resources into political advantage: preferential access, opaque discretion, insider connections, selective enforcement and public institutions whose leaders answer more readily to party authority than to the public.

A bank built this way will not have to issue a single visibly improper loan before public suspicion takes root. Every approval to a party activist, contractor, donor, politically connected businessperson or community leader will invite the same question: was this creditworthiness—or political usefulness?

The PPP-C should not be offended by those questions. It should welcome them and answer them through law, disclosure and independent oversight. If the bank is genuinely designed for national development, then the government should immediately require publication of all eligibility criteria, credit-scoring rules, loan approvals, beneficiaries, interest terms, repayment schedules, defaults, restructurings and write-offs.

It should bar ministers, parliamentarians, party executives, senior public servants and their close relatives or controlled companies from receiving loans. It should require directors and senior staff to disclose assets, business interests and political affiliations. It should establish an independent credit committee, submit the bank to Auditor General scrutiny, and require quarterly reports and substantive examination by the National Assembly.

Above all, no Finance Minister should possess unchecked authority to populate the board of an institution empowered to dispense public money on terms unavailable in the ordinary market

Brazil’s lesson is clear: when public institutions are perceived as controlled by political insiders, scandal does not remain confined to the individuals named in an investigation.

It contaminates the legitimacy of the entire democratic order.

Guyana’s oil wealth has made the stakes even higher. The country has resources sufficient to uplift citizens and diversify the economy—or sufficient to construct a more sophisticated patronage state. The Development Bank will help reveal which path the country has chosen. The government must decide whether this bank belongs to Guyana, or to the PPP-C.