Guyana’s New Security Pact Rests on a Foundation= Corruption Can Crack

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Guyana’s New Security Pact Rests on a Foundation- Corruption Can Crack


OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Guyana has entered a new phase of its relationship with the United States. On October 21, President Irfaan Ali and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a Joint Declaration for an Enhanced Defense Partnership at the Pentagon, promising deeper military cooperation, multidomain training, combined exercises, air-domain awareness, and joint action against narcoterrorism and trafficking.

The agreement is strategically important. Guyana faces an unresolved territorial threat from Venezuela, expanding transnational criminal networks, and increasing scrutiny of its oil-driven rise. Closer defense cooperation with Washington can strengthen deterrence, modernize the Guyana Defense Force, and improve Guyana’s capacity to monitor and protect its territory.

But the pact also creates a new national obligation: Guyana must become capable of protecting sensitive information. The recent U.S. arrest of a CIA contractor accused of leaking classified national-defense material, together with pending Florida litigation over the alleged misuse of confidential information in a major Guyana fuel-infrastructure matter, shows why this is not an abstract concern.

Guyana cannot build a serious security partnership on institutions that cannot reliably protect a procurement file, a commercial design, a defense communication, or an intelligence exchange.

The American warning

On October 23, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the arrest of Ian A. Brinksman, a 42-year-old government contractor who had provided services to the CIA. He was charged with unlawfully transmitting national defense information.

According to prosecutors, Brinksman held Top Secret clearance and allegedly accessed classified intelligence reports beyond the scope of his work. The FBI affidavit alleges that he repeatedly communicated with a romantic partner who operated a Substack publication, and that at least five articles published in 2026 contained information mirroring classified reports, some at the Top Secret level.

These are allegations. Brinksman is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But the case demonstrates a basic truth about national security: the greatest danger often comes not from foreign hackers or enemy armies, but from trusted insiders with access, motive, and opportunity.

The U.S. response was immediate and forceful. The FBI arrested Brinksman after a search of his home; the Justice Department, FBI, and CIA all framed the alleged leak as a betrayal of public trust and a threat to intelligence sources, operations, and officers.

That is the standard Guyana must now confront. If the United States treats the compromise of classified information as a counterintelligence emergency, Guyana cannot treat information security as an afterthought

Guyana’s own precedent

Guyana does not need to look only to Washington for a warning. It already has a live example of how sensitive information connected to a major national project can become the subject of foreign litigation.

Curlew Midstream LLC and Playera Group Global LLC have sued former U.S. congressman Mark Green, lobbyist Marc C. Hebert, and the law firm Jones Walker LLP in Florida. The plaintiffs allege that Hebert, while representing Playera in its work with Curlew on a proposed fuel agreement with the Government of Guyana, misused protected trade information to help form Prosimos and related entities with Green to compete for a similar contract.

The lawsuit further alleges that Green and Hebert communicated with the Guyanese government about “issues” with Curlew, delaying the agreement. These are allegations in pending civil litigation, not judicial findings, and the defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Still, the case matters because it concerns the kind of information that can determine the outcome of a major national project: commercial strategies, technical concepts, negotiation positions, and proprietary material connected to fuel storage and processing infrastructure.

The alleged project was not peripheral. Curlew’s proposal involved a US$300 million tank farm and refining-related facility intended to process up to 30,000 barrels of crude daily and store 750,000 barrels of fuel. Such infrastructure bears directly on Guyana’s energy security, fuel prices, regional supply capacity, and strategic autonomy.

If confidential commercial information connected to such a project can be compromised or exploited, Guyana must ask what would happen to information connected to military logistics, border surveillance, radar coverage, counter-narcotics operations, or U.S. intelligence sharing.

NPTAB and the procurement problem

The Curlew matter also exposes a deeper institutional issue: Guyana’s procurement system cannot be separated from national security.

The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board is supposed to safeguard fair competition, protect confidential bid material, and ensure that public contracts are awarded on merit. Yet NPTAB has repeatedly faced concerns about procurement irregularities, incomplete records, and weak cooperation with oversight bodies.

In 2023, the Public Procurement Commission reported that NPTAB and procuring entities were not supplying documents needed for investigations. Earlier, the government announced a review of NPTAB staff to eliminate “skulduggery.”

Those concerns matter because procurement is not merely an administrative process. It is an information system. Bidders submit designs, pricing, technical specifications, financing structures, and commercial strategies. If that material leaks, is copied, or is selectively shared, competition is distorted and the public may pay more for inferior work.

A state that cannot protect proprietary designs in a fuel-farm bid cannot credibly promise to protect classified military plans, intelligence-source material, or sensitive bilateral communications. The problem is not only corruption. It is the absence of a disciplined information architecture

.Corruption is now a security risk

Guyana’s corruption problem has traditionally been framed as a fiscal and democratic issue. It is now also a counterintelligence issue.

Guyana ranks poorly on global corruption measures, and civil-society organizations have warned that elite capture, weak investigations, and inadequate institutional accountability continue to undermine public trust. Oil wealth has magnified the stakes. Large contracts, land allocations, infrastructure projects, fuel arrangements, and security services now involve sums large enough to make leaks, insider dealing, and influence peddling highly profitable.

This creates a dangerous political economy of information. A minister, adviser, procurement officer, security official, contractor, lobbyist, or intermediary may have access to information whose disclosure can produce contracts, political protection, cash, status, or foreign favour.

In such an environment, corruption becomes an attack surface. Criminal networks can buy information about patrols, ports, checkpoints, and enforcement operations. Foreign states can cultivate officials with access to strategic material. Domestic political actors can weaponize leaks for partisan advantage. Investors may withhold proprietary technology if they fear it will be passed to competitors.

The result is a country that is simultaneously richer and more exposed.

What the U.S. pact requires

The new defense declaration will increase the volume and sensitivity of information shared between Guyana and the United States. President Ali described the agreement as strengthening air-domain awareness, Guyana’s ability to monitor and respond to threats, and cooperation against narco-terrorist organizations and trafficking networks.

That means Guyana may handle material relating to:

  • Air surveillance and radar coverage.
  • Maritime domain awareness.
  • Military logistics and deployment planning.
  • Counter-narcotics and counter-trafficking operations.
  • Cybersecurity and communications systems.
  • Intelligence assessments and source protection.
  • Contingency planning related to external threats.

A leak in any of these areas could compromise personnel, expose operational methods, endanger intelligence sources, or weaken Guyana’s deterrence against Venezuela.

The United States will assess Guyana not only by its public statements, but by its ability to control access, vet personnel, secure communications, investigate breaches, and hold insiders accountable. If Georgetown cannot demonstrate those capacities, Washington may limit what it shares, route sensitive cooperation around Guyanese institutions, or treat Guyana as a partner whose strategic value is constrained by institutional risk.

The Venezuela factor

The defense pact cannot be understood apart from Venezuela’s continuing claim to the Essequibo. Caracas maintains its claim over roughly 160,000 square kilometers of Guyanese territory, while the International Court of Justice has not yet issued a final judgment.

In that context, information protection becomes a sovereignty issue. A leak involving air-interdiction planning, border patrols, U.S. liaison activity, military readiness, or emergency contingency plans could give an external adversary a strategic advantage

.Guyana would not merely lose a document. It could lose deterrence.

This is why the Brinksman case should be read in Georgetown as more than an American legal story. It is a preview of the kind of vulnerability Guyana must prevent within its own security architecture.

What Guyana must build

Guyana should not retreat from cooperation with the United States. It should use the partnership as the catalyst for a national information-security reform agenda.

A Protected Information Act

Parliament should enact a comprehensive law covering classified defense information, intelligence material, critical-infrastructure data, procurement confidentiality, commercially sensitive bid documents, and personal data held by the state.

The law must distinguish between legitimate secrecy and political concealment. It should punish unauthorized disclosure, theft, copying, solicitation, and reckless handling of protected information, while protecting genuine whistleblowers who expose corruption, illegality, or dangers to public safety through lawful channels.

Security vetting

No person should receive access to sensitive bilateral material without proper vetting. This should include criminal-record checks, financial-disclosure review, conflict-of-interest screening, foreign-contact assessment, and periodic reinvestigation.

Vetting must apply to military and police personnel, civil servants, contractors, consultants, translators, IT workers, and private-sector intermediaries—not merely to senior officials.

NPTAB reform

NPTAB needs digital tender files, access logs, encrypted submission systems, conflict-of-interest registers, independent technical evaluators, and mandatory reporting of suspected leaks.

A bidder whose proprietary design or commercial information is compromised must have a clear right to notification, investigation, and remedy. Without such protections, serious international firms will treat Guyanese procurement as commercially hazardous.

Counterintelligence capacity

Guyana needs a professional counterintelligence and insider-threat unit with a clear legal mandate. Its work should include leak investigations, personnel-risk assessment, financial-integrity checks, foreign-influence detection, and protection of bilateral defense information.

It must be independent enough to investigate powerful people. Otherwise, it will become another political weapon rather than a national-security institution.

Secure communications

Government cannot continue conducting sensitive business through personal phones, informal WhatsApp groups, private email accounts, and unsecured cloud storage. Officials handling defense, procurement, intelligence, energy, or critical-infrastructure matters need approved and monitored communications systems.

Contractual safeguards

Every defense-cooperation agreement should include a classified-information annex. It should specify who may access material, how it is stored, how personnel are vetted, how breaches are reported, and what remedies apply when either side fails to protect shared information.

The same standards should extend to energy, ports, cyber, telecommunications, and other critical-infrastructure agreements involving foreign partners.

Independent oversight

Parliament, the Public Procurement Commission, the Auditor General, and an independent national-security oversight body must be able to verify that secrecy is being used lawfully.

Oversight does not require publishing operational secrets. It requires proof that access is limited, records are maintained, breaches are investigated, and abuses are punished.

The choice before Guyana

Guyana is no longer a small state seeking modest assistance. It is an oil-rich country entering deeper military cooperation with the United States while facing external pressure from Venezuela, criminal networks, and intense competition for contracts and influence.

The Brinksman case shows that even the world’s most powerful security state can be undermined by one person with access and motive. The Curlew litigation shows that Guyana already faces allegations that confidential commercial information can be exploited in its most consequential infrastructure negotiations.

The lesson is uncomfortable: Guyana’s greatest security vulnerability may not be Venezuela’s claim to the Essequibo. It may be Guyana’s own inability to control information within its state.

If Guyana wants American trust, investor confidence, and public legitimacy, it must prove it can protect secrets from friends, rivals, contractors, lobbyists, lovers, and politicians alike.

Otherwise, Guyana will have signed a defense partnership it cannot securely operate—and will have invited deeper strategic entanglement without the institutional capacity to defend its own national interest.

Link to Brinkman’s Affidavit :👉

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1468496/dl?inline&fbclid=IwVERDUAVL3CxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mAWZkaWQWURCKHM9f0wBjYQ2F3Nn2AE8Qgx5pV3NydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR4_wsflXJAEVDztEMluZZl7W0pU7938QxJOis3DJ_P8ONaYyrTq_2pOUbC-KA_aem_DcBHfvmKGzvbfSHMmEFuQw 

 

Honouring the Life and Legacy of Eusi Kwayana 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Press Release 

Honouring the Life and Legacy of Eusi Kwayana


OCTOBER 20 2026

With deep gratitude and celebration of a life, we formally announce the passing of Brother Eusi 

Kwayana, beloved Guyanese elder, educator, writer, cultural producer, whose practice of PanAfricanism entailed an equally unwavering commitment to solidarity across communities, cultures, and faiths. He was a lifelong advocate for equal rights and justice for African, East Indian, Indigenous, women and the young in Guyana, and vulnerable communities everywhere. 

Brother Eusi’s commitment to anticolonial liberation, independence, cultural dignity and community solidarity have shaped generations in Guyana, the Caribbean and the world. His life offered a powerful example of principled struggle, humility and passion for justice in all possible forms and across all differences. 

Gatherings to honour Brother Eusi’s life and legacy will take place from October 30 – November 1, 2026 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA and from November 13-15 in Guyana. A detailed program for Brother Eusi’s homecoming in Guyana will follow. 

These groundings, celebrating a life in the spirit of “don’t mourn, organise”, are being planned collectively and collaboratively by family, friends, comrades and community members within and outside Guyana, in keeping with Brother Eusi’s life ethos of shared purpose and collective action.  

For further information, and for interviews, please contact: 

Iyabo Kwayana: ikwayana@gmail.com  

Wazir Mohamed: wazirmoh@gmail.com ; 1(765) 994-7148 (WhatsApp) 

Alissa Trotz: datrotz@gmail.com   

A Tribute From The Editorial Board of The 592 Guardian . 

Honoring Brother Eusi Kwayana: A Life Given to Guyana and Humanity


Guyana mourns the passing of Brother Eusi Kwayana, but we do not mourn without also giving profound thanks. We celebrate a legendary son of this soil whose long, disciplined and fearless life was devoted to the liberation, dignity and advancement of people.

Brother Eusi was more than an educator, writer, cultural worker and political thinker. He was a moral voice in the life of our nation. At difficult moments, when silence was convenient and injustice was protected by power, he chose principle. When division threatened to consume our people, he insisted that Guyana’s future could only be secured through justice, mutual respect and solidarity among all its communities.

He gave himself selflessly to humanity. His advocacy embraced African Guyanese, Indo-Guyanese, Indigenous peoples, women, young people, workers and every person whose rights, dignity or future had been placed at risk. His Pan-African commitment was never narrow or exclusionary; it rested on the understanding that no people can be truly free while others remain oppressed, neglected or unheard.

Brother Eusi walked into the fire. He confronted colonialism, authoritarianism, racial injustice, political intolerance and the many failures that denied ordinary people their rightful place in the nation. Yet he did not merely survive those struggles. He emerged with wisdom, clarity and an unbroken commitment to share what he had learned with every generation that crossed his path.

For many, he was a teacher in the fullest sense: not simply one who imparted knowledge, but one who awakened consciousness. His words challenged us to think more deeply, to organize more seriously, to reject hatred, and to hold fast to the belief that Guyana could become a country worthy of all its people.

As the nation shares the sorrow of his passing, we also hold close the invaluable memories, lessons and inspiration he leaves behind. His life reminds us that courage must be exercised, that justice demands persistence, and that citizenship carries a duty to speak, act and stand with those whose voices are too often disregarded.

Brother Eusi Kwayana’s physical presence may now be gone, but his work remains before us. His example will continue to live in every struggle for equality, every demand for accountable governance, every act of inter-community solidarity, and every young Guyanese who dares to imagine a better country.

May we honor him not only with words, but with renewed commitment to the values for which he lived: truth, justice, dignity, unity and collective action.

Rest in power, Brother Eusi. Guyana is richer because you walked among us. Humanity is better because you gave your life in service to it.

Baba Eusi Kwayana

https://eusikwayanalegacy.com

 

 

Eusi Kwayana: A Great Son of Guyana Returns to the Ancestors

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Eusi Kwayana: A Great Son of Guyana Returns to the Ancestors


SPECIAL FEATURE – October 2026

A tribute to a life of conscience, courage and service. We join the nation in celebrating the life, work and enduring legacy of our brother and friend, Eusi Kwayana.

There are some lives so deeply woven into the life of a nation that their passing leaves more than grief. It leaves a silence where a steady voice once stood—a voice that challenged, counselled, comforted and refused to surrender its convictions.

Eusi Kwayana was such a voice.

The Working People’s Alliance has announced the passing of the man generations knew as the Sage of Buxton, joining his family in mourning an elder, teacher, mentor and leader. At 101 years and six months, his long earthly journey has ended. Guyana must now reckon with the loss of one of its greatest sons: a man whose life helped shape its political awakening and whose example asked its people to consider not only what freedom promised, but whom it must serve.

His was a life of “conscience”

In its tribute, the WPA described Kwayana as a protector of the vulnerable and an advocate for the powerless. Those words reach beyond the offices he held and the organizations he helped build. They speak to the moral purpose of his public life: the conviction that people pushed to the margins still belonged at the center of the national concern.

A life woven into Guyana’s struggle

The story of Eusi Kwayana cannot be confined to one party, one period or one political allegiance.

As the WPA’s announcement recounts, he served in the original People’s Progressive Party, holding parliamentary and Cabinet responsibilities in the 1953 government. He also served as Assistant General Secretary of the PPP and later as General Secretary of the People’s National Congress, where he edited the party’s newspaper, New Nation.

In 1974, he helped found the Working People’s Alliance. He remained a member until his death, serving as an executive member, parliamentarian, organizer and guiding presence in its publications, Open Word and Dayclean.

Across that long journey, the distinction worth remembering is not simply the breadth of his political involvement. It is the independence the WPA itself honors in its farewell: his ability to remain loyal without abandoning his integrity or surrendering his judgment.

That is a demanding standard. It asks a person to belong without becoming captive, to work with others without allowing the organization to replace the conscience.For those who inherit his example, it is also an enduring challenge

Dignity, identity and service 

Kwayana’s work extended beyond party politics.

The WPA’s account recalls his leadership in land settlement, agricultural marketing, cooperative insurance and cooperative banking initiatives. These responsibilities placed him within the practical work of building a country—work focused  with how people might obtain opportunity, organize their resources and participate in national life.

His cultural commitments were equally significant. He co-founded the African Society for Racial Equality in 1961 and the African Society for Cultural Relations with Independent Africa in 1964, advancing African Guyanese cultural consciousness, pride and dignity.

Born Sydney King, he took the name Eusi Kwayana, which the WPA renders as “Black Man of Guyana.”

In remembering that name, we remember the dignity of a person defining himself, affirming his ancestry and declaring his belonging. His African identity and his Guyanese identity were not competing claims. In the life being honored today, they formed part of the same commitment to human worth.

The empty chair

The WPA writes that his death leaves “an empty chair in the gallery of our Guyanese humanity.”

It is an image worthy of the moment.

“An empty chair reminds us that something irreplaceable has gone: the presence, the memory, the counsel that could be sought from someone who had lived through so much of the country’s unfinished story. Yet a memorial must do more than place flowers beside that chair.”

To honor Kwayana is to take seriously the qualities his comrades remember: service without surrender of principle; cultural pride rooted in dignity; solidarity with those who possess little power; and the courage to think independently.

No life, however long, can complete a nation’s work. Those who follow must decide what to carry forward.

We mourn with his family, his comrades, his students and all who found wisdom or encouragement in his presence. We also give thanks that Guyana had him for so long.

Farewell, Eusi Kwayana.

Farewell, Sage of Buxton.

You have returned to the ancestors. The country you served must now find the courage to live up to the best of what you taught.

We join the nation in celebrating the life, work and enduring legacy of our brother and friend, Eusi Kwayana.

“This tribute draws on the WPA’s announcement and account of Kwayana’s life supplied above.”

Baba Eusi Kwayana

https://eusikwayanalegacy.com

 

Nobel Peace Prize 2026: A Victory for Law Over Power

 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.

The Nouveau Riche of Oil: How Guyana Grew a Class It Never Had

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

The Nouveau Riche of Oil: How Guyana Grew a Class It Never Had


OPINION BY: Hem Kumar . —September 2026 

Guyana was, for most of its post-independence life, a poor country with a flat proletariat– class structure. Not equal — poor. Sugar, rice and bauxite paid wages that kept the majority in a shared, undifferentiated hardship, and the small commercial elite that existed traded in the same narrow, low-margin economy as everyone else.

There was no capital base large enough to produce a true domestic wealthy class, only a colonial one that left with the colonizers and a commercial layer that never approached the scale of what oil has now made possible.

Whatever else can be said about that era, it did not have a Guyanese class of people who could write personal checks in the hundreds of thousands of US dollars.

That class exists now. The question this piece asks is not whether wealth has grown in Guyana since 2019 — it obviously has, nationally, by any macroeconomic measure. The question is whether that wealth has produced, for the first time in the country’s history, a domestic class positioned above the law of ordinary income — a class whose wealth accumulation has outpaced anything a public salary could produce, sitting inside a state that has neither the will nor the machinery to ask how.

The mechanism, not just the outcome

Two documented cases now sit in the public record — not as opposition talking points, but as filings.

Mustapha. The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission’s own Mineral Map shows 7,614 acres of mining land allocated since 2023 to Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha’s two sons and daughter-in-law — allocations that bypassed long-standing local applicants, according to the allegation that prompted the minister’s public response. Mustapha’s rebuttal does not dispute the acreage; it disputes the characterization, insisting the allocations followed lawful procedure, and counters that the family of his chief accuser, WIN leader Azruddin Mohamed, controls more mining land still. Both things can be true.

What neither side disputes is the underlying fact:the minor children and in-laws of a sitting minister now hold a mining land portfolio that would have been unthinkable for any Guyanese family outside the old commercial elite a decade ago.

Rodrigues. The documentary trail here is this writer’s own, published across a series of Stabroek News letters beginning January 7, 2026, built entirely on public Florida and Broward County records, and unrebutted by any competing document in the nine months since. Florida Division of Corporations filings list Tourism Minister Susan Rodrigues as Manager and Authorized Person of Revelle Investments LLC, registered January 16, 2024, alongside Denisha Bobb — who, per a September 2025 shareholder resolution filed with a separate Guyana-registered company, has since legally changed her name to Denisha Rodrigues by new birth certificate.

On March 11, 2024, a Warranty Deed shows Amil Dial Homes LLC selling a property at 8601 NW 46th Ct, Lauderhill, to “Susan Margaret Rodrigues, Single,” for US$540,000, financed by a US$378,000 mortgage from A&D Mortgage. The very next day, March 12, Rodrigues executed a Quit Claim Deed transferring the same property from her own name into Revelle Investments LLC for a nominal $10 — a deed that, per my own  reporting, specifically states no title search was performed. That deed was recorded with Broward County on April 9, 2024, and the Broward County Property Appraiser’s records now list Revelle Investments LLC as owner.

A&D Mortgage’s own 2024 Form 1098 — the official tax document Rodrigues has pointed to as proof of transparency — shows the loan originating March 11, 2024 at $378,000, and an Ending Principal Balance of $0.00 as of the December 31, 2024 reporting date: a 30-year mortgage apparently extinguished within the same calendar year it began. This writer’s published reporting reads that zero balance as consistent with only two possibilities in ordinary banking practice — the loan was paid in full, or it never functioned as genuine long-term debt to begin with — and notes that Broward County’s public record does not show the Satisfaction of Mortgage that Florida Statute -SS 701.04 would ordinarily require to formally close out a paid loan. No document contradicting that reading — no recorded satisfaction, no assignment, no alternative explanation from Rodrigues or A&D Mortgage — has surfaced in public since that specific reporting was first published in January. Our own findings were formally filed with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, and remain, as of this writing, under active review. Rodrigues separately acknowledged purchasing two lots at Peters Hall, financed by mortgage—which by AML-CFT rules, ought to have been flagged  by the issuing bank–under qualifying criteria–with title signed October 10, 2024 — while she held a ministerial portfolio overseeing the award of lands and titles.

None of this reporting has been legally challenged by Rodrigues in the months since publication. What she has done instead is emblematic of a pattern this outlet has documented more than once. The Integrity Commission was established by Act No. 20 of 1997 as an autonomous body, explicitly “not subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” President Ali, by his own account, personally reviewed the Revelle Investments matter and pronounced himself satisfied — accepting an explanation on the Commission’s behalf before it had so much as issued a subpoena.  This writer’s own published response to that intervention named it directly: Ali acting as Rodrigues’s “private investigator and clearance officer,” the Commission’s silence amounting to accepting its own termination “with a smile,” and the entire arrangement functioning, in this writer’s words, not as a barrier to corruption but as camouflage for it — a “ghost agency” retained chiefly to satisfy international donors with a veneer of legitimacy.

The same reflex surfaced again, days later, in an entirely different institutional setting. Following a government-vehicle crash involving the son of a sitting Home Affairs Minister — an incident that surfaced alongside unresolved public questions about a prior, fatal 2024 crash in which a woman, Salima Heeralal, lost her life — the Guyana Police Force offered no briefing, no preliminary findings, and no visible sign that routine procedure was underway. What filled that silence was not a police statement but a presidential assurance. Once again this writer’s published response to that episode asked the question directly: whether Ali’s early intervention, offered before investigators had spoken, did not so much calm the matter as signal to every level of authority what the acceptable conclusion should be — and whether presidential assurance had, in effect, replaced police investigation as the actual mechanism of accountability.

Three ministers, three entirely different institutions — a constitutional integrity body and a criminal police investigation — and in every instance– the same figure, the President, stepped in ahead of the institution’s own process to declare the matter settled.

That is not a defense mounted through the machinery the law built for the purpose, machinery explicitly designed to be independent of exactly this kind of interference. It is a verdict delivered from the Office of the President, replacing the ones those institutions were never allowed to reach.

The Benchmark: what MV Barima shows about how this administration actually works

By the time the MV Barima disaster occurred, the pattern above was not new — it was escalating. The same reflex that closed the Rodrigues and Waldron matters before their respective institutions could act is visible, at far higher stakes, in how this administration has handled the deaths of 73 people aboard that vessel.

The Commission of Inquiry into that disaster was not assembled through a visibly independent process. It was sworn in unilaterally by President Ali, behind closed doors, without press present, before commissioners’ potential conflicts of interest had been disclosed to the public. Two of those conflicts surfaced only through independent digging: commissioner Nyree Dawn Alfonso’s own law firm’s case record placed her alongside Keoma Griffith — now Ali’s Minister of Labour — as co-counsel in a prior Guyana Supreme Court matter, and Griffith’s professional bio was quietly scrubbed from that firm’s website in the days immediately before Alfonso’s swearing-in. A second appointee, Dr. Ivor English, brought to lead a “Safety and Compliance Audit Team,” turned out to still hold an active MARAD consultancy and a board seat at the Guyana National Shipping Corporation — auditing, in effect, an agency he remained institutionally embedded in. A third, the Commission’s own Secretary, was appointed from a family with a documented multi-decade proximity to the governing party.

None of these connections were volunteered by the Office of the President. All were established after the fact, by outside reporting.

Alongside the Commission sits the Attorney General, who moved within weeks of the disaster to warn grieving families against retaining independent lawyers, calling such representation potentially criminal — while the government’s own compensation channel, explicitly and repeatedly described by the state as “not compensation” and carrying no admission of liability, remained the only sanctioned route to relief. And alongside both sits a demonstrated operational capacity the state has not extended to its own citizens in crisis: when an opposition-led protest breached barricades at a vice-presidential outreach event, Coast Guard, police marine units and joint services mobilized within minutes; when the MV Barima’s captain radioed distress at roughly 10 p.m., the rescue vessel that reached the scene reportedly did not arrive until after 5 a.m. The state’s rapid-response machinery is real. It moves fastest to secure the government’s own comfort, not to save lives it has been slow to prioritize or challenges it would rather not answer.

Read together, this is not a portrait of an administration whose oversight institutions have simply atrophied. It is an administration that has learned to manage the appearance of institutional independence while retaining personal control over its outcome — swearing in inquiries whose composition it does not disclose, delivering verdicts on allegations before its own accountability bodies can rule, and closing off the avenues, legal or investigative, through which an outside party might reach a different conclusion. Once that pattern is visible at the scale of 73 deaths, it should not be read as coincidental at the scale of a minister’s mining acreage or a minister’s Florida LLC.

It is the same reflex, operating at lower volume, on a class of officials whose wealth has grown fastest since 2020, and who now sit inside a system this outlet has watched, case after case, decline to independently verify anything the Office of the President has already pronounced settled.

Why this is structural, not anecdotal

The Mustapha and Rodrigues cases, and the MV Barima Commission, sit inside a wider pattern this outlet has already documented independently:

♦ The REO/PS purge (May 2026): President Ali’s own stated justification for removing Regional Executive Officers and Permanent Secretaries nationwide was that officials and their family members had registered companies and captured public contracts — his government’s own admission that the mechanism exists at the administrative level, not just the ministerial one. Four months later, Vice President Jagdeo delivered nearly the same warning to the replacements, with no disclosed enforcement action in between.

♦ Long Creek: A 2011 State Lands lease names Bharrat Jagdeo as Lessor and “Mohamed Ali” as Lessee for land at Long Creek; independent satellite tracing puts the developed acreage near 155, against a lower figure implied by the President. Neither the lease nor the acreage gap has been resolved by any independent inquiry, despite a standing public demand for a Commission of Inquiry.

President Ali,155-acre farm at Long Creek

♦  The Development Bank Bill: passed without debate in July 2026, concentrating roughly $40 billion in discretionary allocation power in the Finance Minister’s office — a mechanism, not yet tested, for exactly the kind of capital access that could formalize and accelerate what is currently happening piecemeal through land and mining allocations.

None of these are proof of a coordinated scheme in the conspiratorial sense. They do not need to be. Taken together, they describe something more durable than a scandal:

An administration in which the president’s own pronouncements substitute for institutional verification, consistently, across ministries and across stakes as different as a mining allocation and a maritime disaster — and in which every nominally independent body positioned to check that pattern has, so far, either been appointed with undisclosed ties to it or been preempted by a presidential verdict before it could rule.

What this is not

This is not a claim that Guyana’s oil wealth is being stolen wholesale, and it should not be written as one. Mustapha and Rodrigues have both offered detailed, document-referenced rebuttals; some of what critics allege may be fully lawful. The claim is narrower, and it is not that any single official is guilty of anything a court has found.

It is that Guyana’s oil windfall has created, within six years, a visible domestic wealth tier — measured in mining acreage, US real estate, and corporate structures — with no precedent in the country’s economic history, sitting inside an administration that has repeatedly substituted the President’s own word for the independent verification its institutions exist to provide.

MV Barima shows what that substitution costs when the stakes are 73 lives and a submerged wreck nobody in authority seems in a hurry to raise. The same reflex, applied to a minister’s land holdings, a police investigation, or a minister’s LLC, costs less visibly, but it is drawn from the identical playbook: intervene early, declare the matter settled, and let the institution built to answer the question stand down before it has asked it.

 A closing note, not a verdict

None of what is documented above required this outlet to prove that any individual official broke the law. That was never the test applied here, and readers should notice that it wasn’t — because the pattern holds regardless of how any single case would resolve if it were ever actually tried.

What holds is this: three times, across three different institutions built for three different purposes — an integrity commission empowered by statute to be free of exactly this kind of interference, a police investigation into a fatal crash, a commission of inquiry into 73 deaths — the same office arrived first, spoke last, and closed the question before the institution assigned to it could open one

 

A country can survive individual corruption. Officials take what they shouldn’t, and if the institutions built to catch it are allowed to function, the wealth gets clawed back, the careers end, the system corrects

What a country cannot survive indefinitely is the quieter condition on display here:

A governing class whose fortunes grow fastest precisely where the mechanisms meant to check them have already been answered for, in advance, by the one office no mechanism was built to check. Whether that condition has a name — and what should be done about it — is left, deliberately, to the reader.

 

THE  POWER  OF  POSSIBLE -A Financal Literacy Mini- Series For Guyana’s GenZ

  592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM◊GUYANA

THE  POWER  OF  POSSIBLE 


A Financal Literacy Mini- Series For Guyana’s GenZ . -The 592Guardian 

SPECIAL FEATURE —Staff Writer -August 2026

The Power of Possible is a practical financial-literacy miniseries for Guyana’s Gen Z and first-time earners. It is designed to make money matters easier to understand—from finding work and opening a bank account to saving, borrowing, starting a small business and preparing for new opportunities in a rapidly changing economy. Our objective is not to lecture young people or blame them for the barriers they face. It is to provide clear, useful information that helps them ask better questions, avoid costly mistakes and make sound decisions with whatever income or opportunity is available. As Guyana expands its economy and develops new avenues for finance, training and enterprise, this series aims to help young people prepare, participate and turn opportunity into lasting progress.

Episode 1: Before the Budget — The Real Cost of Finding Work

Financial literacy is often taught as if every young person begins with a steady paycheck: make a budget, save something, avoid debt and plan ahead. Those are important skills. But for many young Guyanese, the first financial challenge comes before the first salary: finding work.

You cannot budget money you have not yet earned.

Guyana is changing rapidly. New industries, new businesses and the proposed Development Bank could create more routes into jobs, training, entrepreneurship and investment. Those opportunities can be powerful—but young people must be ready to understand the real costs, ask the right questions and make informed decisions.

That is where financial literacy begins.

The Numbers Tell Two Stories

Guyana’s official unemployment rate was a little over 6% in the second quarter of 2026, according to the Bureau of Statistics’ Quarterly Labor Force Survey. At first glance, that sounds encouraging. But the national figure does not tell the whole story for young people.

World Bank data, using International Labour Organization estimates, puts unemployment among people aged (15 to 24) at 24.9% in 2025. In plain terms, nearly one in every four young people looking for work could not find it. That means a young person entering the workforce faces a much harder reality than the national unemployment number suggests.

Behind that figure are real pressures:

⇒ Mobile data is needed to search and apply for jobs.

⇒ Transport is needed to attend interviews and get to work.

⇒ Appropriate clothes, meals and personal care all cost money.

⇒ Family members may expect support even before stable work is found.

⇒ A person may accept low-paid work because they cannot afford to keep searching.

These are not signs that young people are irresponsible. They are the real costs of trying to enter the economy.

Budgeting Starts Before the Paycheck

A budget is not magic. It cannot create a job or increase a low salary. But it can help a young person see the truth of a situation before financial pressure makes the decision for them.

Before accepting a job, ask:

⇒ How much will it cost each day to travel there and back?

⇒ Will I need lunch, mobile data, uniforms or special clothing?

⇒ What will I actually have left after those costs?

⇒ Is the job close enough and stable enough for me to keep it?

⇒ Will this job build experience, skills or connections that can lead to better opportunities?

For example, a job may offer (G$100,000) per month. That may sound like a starting point. But if transport costs (G$1,200) per workday, that can amount to about (G$26,000) in a typical month. Add lunch, data and other work-related expenses, and the usable income may be far lower than the advertised salary suggests.

Knowing this does not mean rejecting every entry-level job. It means making the decision with your eyes open.

 Opportunity Must Be Reachable

Guyana’s Constitution recognizes every citizen’s right to freely choose a trade, occupation or profession. That principle matters, especially to a new generation preparing to work, train, start businesses and build independent lives. But freedom to choose has to be matched by a fair chance to enter the marketplace.

Can a young person afford transport to training or work? Do they have reliable internet access? Can they obtain a permit, open an account, access credit or find information about available programs? Can a small business owner get startup financing without taking on unmanageable debt?

These questions will become even more important as new financing avenues emerge, including those that may come through a Development Bank. Loans, grants, business support and training can help turn potential into income—but only when people understand the costs, conditions, risks and responsibilities attached to them.

A loan can help fund equipment, stock, certification or expansion. But it must be repaid. Before borrowing, young people should understand interest, repayment periods, collateral, penalties and whether the business or job can realistically produce enough income to meet the monthly payment.

The First Money-Smart Move

For a first-time jobseeker, the first money-smart move is not necessarily saving or investing. It is pricing the route to income honestly. Calculate what it costs to apply, travel, work and stay in a job long enough to gain experience and move forward. Keep track of spending on data, transport, food and job-search costs. Compare that total with the money likely to come in.

Financial literacy should help young people make the most of opportunity. It should never be used to blame them for obstacles they did not create. The goal is not simply to teach Gen Z how to manage money once it arrives. It is to help them recognise opportunity, protect themselves from bad deals, prepare for better ones and use every new avenue wisely.

LEARN MORE: https://youtu.be/mVbcRjdpG-E 

In Episode 2, we look at the next question: who among Guyana’s first-time earners has a bank account, who is able to save, and who remains outside the formal financial system before they ever receive their first payslip?

Sources: Guyana Bureau of Statistics, Quarterly Labor Force Survey, Q2 2026; World Bank World Development Indicators, “Unemployment, youth total % of total labor force ages (15–24 yrs.) modeled ILO estimate,” sourced from ILOSTAT.

MAC MAHARAJ  and the Discipline of Revolution

  592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM◊GUYANA

 


 Mac Maharaj and the Discipline of Revolution

OP-ED BY : Hem Kumar August 2026

There was a time when political commitment was not measured by a Facebook post, a motorcade, a press release, or the ability to speak loudly at a public meeting. It was measured by what a person was prepared to endure—and whether, after prison, torture, isolation and exile, that person still remained committed to the cause.

Sathyandranath “Mac” Maharaj. A South African Revolutionary .

Sathyandranath “Mac” Maharaj’s life belongs to that tradition. Arrested in July 1964 during apartheid South Africa’s repression of the African National Congress and its allied underground, Maharaj was convicted in the so-called Little Rivonia Trial and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He spent most of that sentence on Robben Island alongside Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki and other figures who would come to embody South Africa’s liberation struggle.

The record of his interrogation is not precisely documented in the sources this newsroom  could verify, but multiple independent accounts agree he was subjected to sustained torture during that period and gave his interrogators nothing that broke the underground network he had helped build.

The prison sentence was not merely imprisonment. It followed brutal state repression and torture. Yet Maharaj emerged neither politically broken nor personally detached from the struggle. That fact is central to understanding him. Many persons can speak about sacrifice after the danger has passed; Maharaj lived through the danger when apartheid still controlled the courts, the police, the prisons, the borders and the machinery of everyday life.

On Robben Island, Maharaj became part of another extraordinary act of political resistance: preserving Mandela’s prison manuscript. Mandela wrote what would later form the basis of  Long Walk to Freedom in secret. When prison officials discovered the original manuscript hidden in the garden, a transcribed copy had already been prepared. Maharaj had copied the text in tiny handwriting and concealed it within a study file among his academic materials. When he was released in December 1976, the hidden manuscript left prison with him.

That distinction — between what can be footnoted and what cannot — matters more with Maharaj than with most subjects, because his life’s work depended on exactly that kind of discipline: what to reveal, what to withhold, and when.

That episode tells us something larger than an ingenious prison escape for a set of papers. It reveals the discipline of serious political work. The men on Robben Island understood that a struggle is fought not only with speeches and demonstrations, but with memory, organization, education, trust and patience. They understood that the written record of a movement mattered. They understood that history itself could become a battlefield.

After his release, Maharaj left South Africa in 1977 and was assigned by the ANC to work in exile. But exile did not become retirement.

It was from exile that he became the authenticating link in one of the most audacious acts of sabotage of the entire anti-apartheid campaign.

A young South African contractor named Rodney Wilkinson, who had gained access to South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear power station near Cape Town, smuggled out the plant’s building plans and delivered them to the ANC. Maharaj vetted the material and the man. He then made an unusual call: rather than send a trained guerrilla into Koeberg, he judged that Wilkinson himself — already inside, already trusted by the plant’s engineers — gave the operation its best chance of reaching the reactor’s most vulnerable points. The mission was named, after him, Operation Mac.

On the night of 18–19 December 1982, Wilkinson planted four limpet mines at Koeberg — two on the reactor heads, two in cabling beneath the control rooms — timed to detonate after the plant’s reactors were shut and, according to the ANC’s own account, after independent nuclear experts had been consulted to rule out any radiation risk to civilians. The devices, aged and imperfectly engineered, went off in a staggered sequence over roughly twelve hours rather than simultaneously. No one was injured. Wilkinson had already arranged his own farewell party from the plant for the same week — sitting through the send-off, by his own account, while wondering whether the mines beneath the building would hold their timing.

This publication  has not been able to verify specific damage or delay figures sometimes attached to the Koeberg attack, and does not print unverified numbers. What is documented, corroborated on the record by both Maharaj and Wilkinson decades later, is the operation itself: a nuclear facility under construction for the apartheid state, penetrated and struck by a insider recruited and directed from exile.

Maharaj’s most sustained act of discipline came in 1988, when the ANC decided to send serving leadership back into South Africa itself — not as visitors or infiltrators passing through, but to live and command from inside the country they had been exiled from. Maharaj, by then a member of the ANC’s National Executive Committee, was chosen alongside Umkhonto we Sizwe commander Siphiwe Nyanda to go first.

The preparation took months. In Amsterdam, an operative built Maharaj a new identity from nothing — disguise specialists trained him to alter his walk, padded clothing to change his build, and the city’s opera-house wigmaker built him a wig from a foam cast of his own skull. The cover story given to his own ANC colleagues in Lusaka, who were not told the truth, was that Maharaj had gone to Moscow for a kidney operation.

“Not even his colleagues in Lusaka could be let in on what he was about to do.”

In August 1988, travelling in disguise, Maharaj and Nyanda were smuggled into Swaziland and walked across the border into South Africa on foot. A car was waiting, driven by an ANC sympathizer who had not been told what the operation was. It dropped them outside the Carlton Hotel in central Johannesburg. Maharaj later described the state he and Nyanda were in as they crossed: on a high state of alertness, ready, as he put it, to see ghosts on every street corner.

What followed was Operation Vula — Vulindlela, ‘to open the way’ — an underground project to connect the ANC’s exiled leadership directly to its structures inside South Africa, using acoustic modems and one-time-pad encryption relayed through a London flat to reach Lusaka in real time, smuggled equipment carried in by sympathetic air crew, and a growing number of returning operatives, each fitted with a disguise of their own.

The historian Stephen Ellis would later call it the most effective and impressive project the ANC ever mounted. It ran until the ANC’s unbanning in 1990, when Maharaj was detained by security police just three days before he was due to appear publicly as a relaunched South African Communist Party leader — arrested, that final time, in the open, under his own name.

He does not need the embellishment. The documented record already describes a man convicted at twenty-nine, imprisoned for twelve years, and sent back into the country that had jailed him wearing another man’s face and walk, to build, from inside, the network that helped end the system that built Robben Island in the first place.

This is where the lesson becomes uncomfortable for many contemporary politicians and activists.

Maharaj did not build a political reputation through convenience. He did not become relevant only when power was within reach. He did not enter struggle as a career path, then treat public service as a route to contracts, status, personal enrichment or permanent entitlement. His political life was marked by a sustained line: underground work, imprisonment, education in prison, exile, clandestine return, organization, democratic transition and, later, public office.

When apartheid fell and South Africa held its first democratic election in 1994, Maharaj became Minister of Transport in Nelson Mandela’s first cabinet. From prisoner to minister was not simply a personal triumph. It reflected an idea that is now too often forgotten: those who demand the right to govern must first show the capacity to serve, organize and sacrifice for something beyond themselves.

Maharaj eventually left frontline electoral politics and government office, though he later returned to public service as spokesperson to President Jacob Zuma. But whether one agrees with every political association or decision made in his later years is not the central point. The record from 1964 through the democratic transition is a record of sustained commitment under conditions that most of today’s political actors would find unimaginable.

The missing quality in Guyana

Guyana’s political culture urgently needs this kind of consistency—not the reproduction of another country’s struggle, and certainly not romantic slogans about revolution, but a return to the ethics that gave liberation politics its meaning.

Too much of what passes for activism today is episodic. A crisis appears; voices rise. A controversy trends; commentators mobilize. An election approaches; principles suddenly become fashionable. Then the moment passes, attention moves elsewhere, and the public is left with the same unaccountable systems, the same secrecy, the same political patronage and the same institutional decay.

There is a difference between protest and political work.

Protest can be necessary. Outrage can be justified. Public criticism can expose wrongdoing. But sustained political work requires more: study, institutional memory, documentation, community organization, courage under pressure, financial independence, internal democracy and a willingness to remain engaged after the headlines disappear.

That is the distinction that Maharaj’s story brings into sharp relief.

In Guyana, we have no shortage of persons prepared to condemn corruption when it is politically useful, denounce discrimination when it affects their constituency, or speak of justice when they are outside the corridors of power. What remains scarce is a culture of principled consistency: people willing to challenge wrongdoing no matter who commits it; to build organizations that outlive personalities; to maintain public records; to defend citizens who bring inconvenient information; and to resist the temptation to trade conviction for access.

The country’s oil era makes this deficiency even more dangerous.

A society receiving enormous resource revenues cannot afford a political class that thinks only in five-year electoral cycles, nor activists who mobilize only around personal ambition or partisan instruction. Guyana needs citizens and leaders who can sustain scrutiny of contracts, public procurement, environmental protection, land allocation, infrastructure spending, local-government authority and the integrity of public institutions over decades—not merely until the next appointment, contract, candidacy or coalition arrangement.

Courage without consistency is performance

The mythology of politics often celebrates the dramatic moment: the arrest, the protest, the confrontation, the speech. But Maharaj’s example suggests that the deeper test is what comes after.

What do you do after you are released?

Do you return to the work? Do you educate yourself? Do you preserve the movement’s record? Do you build networks quietly? Do you accept personal risk without converting sacrifice into a lifelong claim for privilege? Do you remain accountable when your side acquires power?

Those are harder questions than asking whether someone can denounce an opponent at a rally.

Maharaj’s life does not require us to erase complexity, overlook disputed episodes, or turn any political figure into a saint. Serious history does not work that way. But it does require honesty about a generation that understood commitment as an extended discipline, rather than a temporary performance.

That is what Guyana must recover.

Not blind loyalty. Not political violence. Not personality cults. Not imported revolutionary theatre.

What is needed is a democratic revolutionism of principle: sustained public education, organized citizens, fearless journalism, honest advocacy, transparent institutions and leaders who understand that the public good cannot be pursued only when it is safe, popular or profitable.

Mac Maharaj’s journey—from arrest and Robben Island, to exile and underground organization, to the first democratic government—reminds us that meaningful political change is rarely made by those who appear only when there is applause.

It is made by those who remain when there is a cost.

 

BOOK LAUNCH: ENTER THE POLITICAL KINGDOM BY MOSES BHAGWAN

592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM◊GUYANA

JOIN US IN WASHINGTON D.C. AS:


Moses Bhagwan’s Journey Continues: Washington, D.C. Launch of Enter the Political Kingdom

Following two highly successful book launches in New York and Guyana, Moses Bhagwan’s political memoir, Enter the Political Kingdom: A Guyanese Political Memoir, now comes to Washington, D.C.

This third engagement continues an important journey of remembrance, reflection, and public conversation around a life devoted to political activism, justice, democracy, and the continuing struggle for a better Guyana. Bhagwan’s story reaches beyond the personal: it speaks to generations who have witnessed, participated in, or inherited the consequences of Guyana’s political and social struggles.

Join Moses Bhagwan, the editors, supporters, members of the Guyanese diaspora, students, scholars, activists, and friends for an evening marking the launch of this significant work at the University of the District of Columbia on Thursday, September 10, 2026  @ 5.30 pm. 

 Let us continue the journey with Moses as he shares the lessons, experiences, and life’s work that have shaped his enduring contribution to Guyana and its people.

 Available on Ian Randle Publishers : https://ianrandlepublishers.com/product/moses-bhagwan-enter-the-political-kingdom/

LEARN MORE: https://youtu.be/uXztBywol8Q 

Kaneville Must Not Become Another Land Grab by Another Name

592 GUARDIAN◊ACCOUNTABILITY◊INTEGRITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

 Kaneville Must Not Become Another Land Grab by Another Name


OPINION BY: Hem  Kumar • AUGUST 2026

The eviction notices served on residents of Kaneville, East Bank Demerara, are not merely notices to vacate. They are a test of whether Guyana has one land policy for all citizens—or one policy for the poor and another for the politically protected.

Residents were reportedly given (14) days to remove themselves from land they have occupied, developed and called home. That deadline is now closing in. The public expects what usually follows: State vehicles, heavy equipment, police presence, demolished homes, displaced families and official statements about illegality, order and development.

But Guyanese are entitled to ask the question the authorities would prefer to avoid: Once Kaneville is cleared, who gets the land?

Will it remain for the public purpose now being invoked? Will it be used for roads, drainage, schools, hospitals, housing or other properly disclosed development? Or will the removal of poor families create an opening for persons with the right party ties, business relationships, surnames, telephone numbers and access to decision-makers?

This is not cynicism. It is the product of experience.

For too long, land administration in Guyana has operated under a cloud of public distrust. Ordinary citizens endure long waits, unclear procedures, shifting requirements and unanswered applications. Meanwhile, people perceived to be politically connected appear to obtain access to valuable State lands with a speed and ease that ordinary Guyanese can only envy.

That perception is devastating. It tells the poor man that a formal application is not enough. It tells the young family that hard work is not enough. It tells the unemployed mother that citizenship is not enough. It tells the citizen that the real title deed is not a transport, lease or allocation letter, but a connection.

That is not land policy. That is patronage.

Bulldozers Cannot Be the Policy

Let us be clear: illegal occupation must not be encouraged. Public land is not a free-for-all. Land reserved for roads, drainage, public utilities, schools, hospitals, agriculture, environmental protection and planned housing cannot be casually occupied without consequences.

But law enforcement without justice is not governance. It is simply power.

The State cannot solve a housing crisis by waiting until poor people build homes, establish families, spend years improving a community and then arrive with machinery to erase their lives. If the occupation is unlawful, the State must act. But it must also explain why families were allowed to settle, build and remain for so long; what notice and assistance were provided; whether relocation is available; whether regularization was considered; and whether the land will truly serve the public interest after the evictions.

A family living without title may have no legal right to remain. But that does not mean the State has no duty to act humanely, transparently and consistently.

 

The question is not whether the law applies to Kaneville. It does. The question is whether it applies with equal force to those who obtain land through influence, insider information, preferential treatment or political intervention.

The Public Is Entitled to Answers

Before a single structure is demolished, the responsible agencies should publicly disclose:

◊ The exact legal status and boundaries of the land at Kaneville

◊ The statutory authority under which the evictions are being pursued

◊ The purpose for which the land is required

◊ The full development plan, including timelines and the agency responsible

◊ Whether the land is intended for public infrastructure, housing, commercial development, private leasing or allocation

◊ The names of any current or proposed beneficiaries, developers, lessees or allottees

◊ The method by which any future allocation will be made

◊ The valuation of the land and the basis upon which prices, leases or concessions will be determined

◊ Whether occupants were assessed for regularisation, relocation or alternative housing

◊ The criteria used to decide who receives assistance and who does not

◊ The safeguards against the land being transferred, allocated or occupied by politically favoured persons after residents are removed

There is no valid reason for secrecy. If the exercise is lawful, necessary and in the public interest, transparency can only strengthen it. If transparency is resisted, the public is entitled to ask what exactly is being concealed

No official should be offended by those questions. Public land is held in trust for the people of Guyana. Ministers, agencies and officials do not own it. They administer it. And administration without accountability is merely discretion waiting to be abused.

Squatting, Poverty and Privilege

Guyanese must stop allowing the word “squatter” to shut down every conversation about justice.

Being uprooted after settling for years?

There is a profound difference between an organized scheme to steal or fraudulently transfer land and a poor family occupying land because formal housing is unaffordable, inaccessible or unavailable. Both situations may require legal intervention, but they do not demand the same response, carry the same moral weight or reveal the same failure of the State.

Many informal settlements are not evidence of a people who reject the law. They are evidence of a housing system that has failed to meet human need.

A person who cannot afford a plot, cannot secure a mortgage, cannot navigate the bureaucracy and cannot wait indefinitely for a land allocation will often do what desperate people have always done: find a place to live. That does not create legal ownership. But it does expose the State’s failure to provide an accessible path to lawful ownership.

The poor must not be permitted to capture public lands. But neither should the influential be permitted to capture public lands through boardrooms, back channels, political offices and undisclosed arrangements.

Land theft does not become respectable because the thief wears a suit, owns a company, attends fundraisers or has friends in high office.

One Law Must Govern All

There must not be bulldozers for the weak and accommodation for the well-connected.

There must not be eviction notices for struggling families and quiet land deals for those who can call a Minister, a senior official, a party operative or a powerful business associate.

There must not be public condemnation of informal settlers while choice State lands are allocated, leased, rezoned, regularized or transferred under arrangements the public cannot see and cannot test.

◊ Every State-land allocation should be publicly traceable.

◊ Every beneficiary should be known.

◊ Every valuation should be independently defensible.

◊ Every waiver, concession, lease, regularisation and transfer should be subject to clear written criteria.

◊ Every conflict of interest should be disclosed.

◊ Every credible allegation of favouritizm should be independently investigated.

That is not radical. It is the minimum standard of a functioning democracy. The people of Kaneville are not above the law. But neither are those close to power.

If the State intends to remove them, it must show the public—not merely assert—that the land will be used lawfully, fairly and transparently. It must demonstrate that this is not another cycle in which the vulnerable are removed and the connected later arrive to harvest the opportunity.

Because once that occurs, the eviction is no longer simply an exercise in enforcement.                                                                                                   It becomes State-assisted dispossession.                                                 And no Government that claims to govern for all Guyanese can justify that.

 

A Generation Introduces Itself With Silence

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GUYANA

EDITOR’S NOTEBOOK

A Generation Introduces Itself with Silence


What We Saw Outside the Office of the President — and Why It May Outlast the Ministers Who Ignore It


By Hem Kumar, Editor

I have covered Guyanese politics long enough to know the difference between a crowd that has been organized and a crowd that has organized itself.

What gathered outside the Office of the President this past week belonged unmistakably to the second category. They did not arrive under a party banner. They did not chant the slogans of any of the coalitions that have spent the last two weeks fighting over the wreckage of the MV Barima.

They arrived under a name of their own choosing — We The People — in white T-shirts they had bought with their own limited means, to stand in solidarity with the Amerindian Peoples Association’s continuing action, and then, deliberately, to stand apart from it as well.

Listening to live feeds  with representatives of the group this is what I can deduce .

They did not give us a press release  or a spokesperson’s card; what they showed us  was a banner, five feet of red, green, gold and black, printed with a demand rather than a grievance: “We The People Demand — Ministerial Accountability — Edghill Must Resign.” Their message was bold and stated plainly:  this was not a political party’s operation, and no political party paid for it.

No one incurs an expense they can barely afford to stage a performance nobody asked for.

I want to be careful here, in the way this publication  has tried to be careful with every claim it has made about the Barima disaster since July 18. My own notes from that afternoon are a corraborated  account, not a transcript — we did not take names or recorded interviews off of social media .

What I offer first is my own judgment as an editor who has watched this country’s protest movements rise and dissolve for decades: these were young people, largely surviving on stipends and family support, who chose to spend what little they have on a shirt and an afternoon in the sun outside a government building. That is not the behavior of people staging a show for an audience. It is the behavior of people who have run out of patience with the alternative — waiting.

A MOVEMENT INTRODUCES ITSELF

What We The People represents is still, by its own account, less than two weeks old. It is, on the record now, more precisely described than I could offer from memory alone. Kisskadee Watch, reporting on the same demonstration, identified the protesters as drawn largely from the University of Guyana, gathered in solemn silence outside the Office of the President, holding placards and observing moments of silence for the seventy-three confirmed dead. That reporting confirms what we saw: this was not a chanting crowd or a rally in the mode of the Joint Opposition’s July 27 walk-in. It was quiet, deliberate, and unmistakably generational in its composition.

The same reporting adds a detail this publication thinks is important to state precisely, rather than round off into a cleaner story than the facts support. Organisers maintained that the protest was independent and non-partisan — and I have no reason to doubt that framing was sincerely held.

But members of the We Invest in Nationhood party and A Partnership for National Unity were present in support, alongside members of civil society. That is not a contradiction. A movement can hold its own identity, set its own terms, and still draw solidarity from people who arrive under other banners without becoming those banners.

What matters is who called the protest, who wrote the placards, and who is committing to return — and on all three counts, the record points to the students, not the parties standing behind them.

One of the organisers, Chandradatt Jagdeo, put his own name to a public accounting of the turnout on Facebook afterward: a movement “not even 2 weeks old,” he wrote, “NOT sponsored by any Political party,” that brought “hundreds, 300+ (I did not do a head count) people out.

I record that figure as his claim, made publicly and under his own name, corraborated independently by other attendees describing the same afternoon in the same terms — not as this publication’s own verified count. That distinction matters to me more than the number does.

A movement that can produce a named organiser willing to put a figure on the record, and independent attendees willing to describe the same event unprompted, has already cleared a bar that a great many protest claims in this country’s history have not.

WHY THIS MATTERS MORE THAN A SINGLE PICKET

Guyana has no shortage of protest. The Joint Opposition marched into the National Assembly in black on July 27. The Amerindian Peoples Association has picketed the Office of the President twice in the same week, led by Executive Director Jean La Rose, demanding accountability for communities in Region One that absorbed the disaster’s heaviest losses. Families of the accused T&HD crew have taken to the Den Amstel and Melanie public roads. Every one of these actions has been, in its own register, legitimate.

What distinguishes We The People is that it belongs to none of them.  It is not the opposition’s protest, dressed in the opposition’s colors, chanting the opposition’s slogans of “who must go.” It is not a union action, not a party rally repackaged as civil society, not a demonstration organized by anyone who stood to gain a seat, a ministry, or a headline from it.

It is, on the evidence before me, a generation that watched its government’s handling of a mass-casualty maritime disaster — the shifting timeline on what caused the sinking, the scrubbed commissioner biographies, the pre-drafted memorial-site declarations circulated to grieving families before any consultation had genuinely occurred — and concluded that the normal channels of Guyanese political life were not going to produce the answers it was owed.

That conclusion, if it holds, is the more significant story here. Political parties in Guyana have spent sixty years organizing along lines this news -media has documented at exhausting length.

A movement that explicitly refuses that architecture — that stands beside the APA’s action without folding into it, that borrows the opposition’s demand for Edghill’s resignation without borrowing the opposition’s identity — is doing something Guyanese civil society has rarely managed to sustain: building a constituency for accountability that neither the government nor its established opposition can claim as their own.

WHAT COMES NEXT

This is not intended as a single afternoon of catharsis. Organisers have described this as the first in a planned series of weekly demonstrations, with the next gathering set for the same location — outside the Office of the President — at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, August 7.

A movement that commits to a recurring date, in public, before it knows whether anyone will show up a second time, is making a claim about itself that either holds or collapses in full view. That is a more honest test than anything this paper could construct for it.

I do not know yet which this is. I am not going to promise our readers a Guyanese Spring, because that promise is not mine to make on behalf of people I saw for an afternoon.

What I can tell them is this: a generation that the political establishment has largely assumed to be disengaged showed up, on its own initiative, under its own name, to demand that a government answer for seventy-plus deaths in the manner a Westminster democracy requires of it.

Whether the Ali administration treats that as a passing irritation or as the leading edge of something it can no longer manage through press conferences and pre-drafted declarations will do more to shape the next decade of Guyanese governance than any single resignation anyone is currently calling  for.

This publication will be eagerly awaiting for August 7. Whether the government chooses to notice is, as ever, its own decision to make — and its own consequence to bear.

When a government treats a body count as a communications problem, it should not be surprised when the young decide that protest is the only language left that it understands.

— Hem Kumar, Editor