Procurement in the Shadows: When Tragedy Becomes Pretext

/0 Comments/in /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN•ACCOUNTABILITY&INTEGRITY JOURNALISM • GUYANA

Procurement in the Shadows: When Tragedy Becomes Pretext

OPINION BY : Staff Writer -August 2026

What is unfolding in the aftermath of the MV Barima disaster is not merely administrative misjudgment—it bears the hallmarks of a procurement process that may have been fundamentally compromised from the outset.

At the center of the controversy is a simple but critical distinction: urgency does not justify opacity. In fact, under Guyana’s procurement framework, urgency demands the opposite—heightened accountability, strict documentation, and clear justification for any departure from open competitive tendering.

If, as the leaked documents suggest, the government had already solicited and received a detailed proposal from a specific foreign firm prior to issuing a public Request for Proposals (RFP), then the process begins to resemble what procurement law would characterize as a de facto single-source engagement—regardless of the later attempt to formalize it through an open invitation.

This is where the problem crystallizes.

Single-source procurement is not inherently unlawful, but it is tightly circumscribed. It must be justified on explicit grounds: extreme urgency, sole supplier capability, or national emergency conditions that make competitive tendering impractical. Even then, the law requires transparency—written justification, approval by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), and a clear audit trail.

None of that has been publicly demonstrated.

Instead, what appears to have occurred is a hybrid maneuver: a preferred contractor is quietly engaged and positioned, followed by the issuance of an RFP to create the appearance of competition.                  This is not compliance. It is procedural theatre.

The Expression of Interest (EOI) or RFP, in such a context, risks being reduced to a cosmetic exercise—a post hoc device designed to legitimize a decision that may have already been made.

If other firms are being invited to bid against a proposal that is already known, detailed, and internally assessed, then the playing field is not merely uneven; it is structurally tilted.

This raises serious legal and ethical concerns.

First, it undermines the principle of equal opportunity in public contracting. Firms that were not given early access are immediately disadvantaged, particularly in a highly technical operation requiring mobilization planning, cost modeling, and environmental safeguards.

Second, it exposes the State to potential bid protests and legal challenges, especially from international salvage operators who may view the process as predetermined.

Third, and most critically, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of the response to a national tragedy.

The government may argue that time was of the essence—and it was. A submerged vessel in 13–15 meters of water, in poor visibility and strong currents, presents both environmental and forensic risks. But urgency is not a loophole for selective engagement.

If anything, it strengthens the obligation to act within clearly defined emergency procurement protocols.

There is also a deeper contradiction at play. The administration initially signaled that the wreck site might be preserved as a memorial. That position has now shifted to full recovery—an operationally complex and sensitive undertaking. Such a reversal should have triggered even greater procedural rigor, not less.

What is required now is not defensiveness, but disclosure.

The government must state plainly whether this was treated as an emergency procurement; whether approvals were sought from NPTAB; whether multiple firms were invited prior to the RFP; and whether the Dutch firm was given any informational or timing advantage over potential competitors.

Absent those answers, the conclusion becomes difficult to avoid: that the procurement process was not designed to discover the best solution, but to validate a pre-selected one.

And that, in the context of lost lives, missing persons, and a nation demanding accountability, is not just a procedural failure—it is a moral one.

 

Editor’s Note:

Under Guyana’s Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05, public procurement is governed by core principles of transparency, competition, fairness, and accountability. The Act establishes open tendering as the default method of procurement, with alternative methods—such as restricted tendering or single-source procurement—permitted only under clearly defined and strictly justified circumstances.

Section 25 of the Act outlines the conditions under which restricted or sole-source procurement may be used, including situations of extreme urgency, national emergency, or where only one supplier is capable of performing the contract. However, even in such cases, the procuring entity is required to document the justification, ensure that the process remains as competitive as practicable, and secure the necessary approvals, typically through the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB).

Critically, the law does not permit a procuring entity to engage a preferred supplier in advance and subsequently issue a public tender merely to regularize or legitimize that prior engagement. Such conduct, if established, would undermine the integrity of the procurement process and may constitute a breach of both the letter and spirit of the Act.

Additionally, the Act and accompanying regulations impose obligations for equal access to information among bidders, proper record-keeping, and the avoidance of any practice that could give rise to an unfair competitive advantage. Any deviation—particularly in high-value, high-sensitivity contracts involving public safety or national emergencies—demands heightened scrutiny and full public disclosure.

In this context, the sequence of events surrounding the MV Barima salvage operation raises serious questions as to whether the procedural safeguards required under the Procurement Act were observed, or whether the appearance of competition was substituted for its lawful execution.

—The Board

EMANCIPATION DAY 2026

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

EMANCIPATION DAY 2026

While the Slavery Abolition Act started taking effect on August 1, 1834, full freedom for all enslaved adults in British Guiana was only achieved four years later on August 1, 1838

Emancipation Day in Guyana marks 188 years since August 1, 1838—when chains were formally broken, but not entirely erased.

It is a day of remembrance, but also of reckoning. For while physical enslavement ended, the architecture of inequality, exclusion, and state imbalance has proven far more enduring. Too many citizens still navigate systems that marginalize, silence, or selectively empower.

Emancipation, then, remains unfinished business.

This year, the observance is shadowed by grief. The tragedy of the MV Barima lingers heavily across the nation, with families still waiting, still searching, still mourning.

Their pain reminds us that emancipation is not only about the past—it is about the dignity, value, and protection of life in the present.

This observance belongs to African heritage, but its meaning transcends ethnicity. Across Guyana, people of all backgrounds don traditional wear and participate in cultural celebration—not merely as ritual, but as recognition that freedom must be collective to be real. 

True emancipation demands more than memory; it requires confronting modern forms of capture—political, economic, and psychological—and insisting on justice that is visible, measurable, and shared.

Until then, the cry “free at last” remains not a declaration, but an aspiration.

The Commission Is Qualified. The Process Is Not Explained.

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM · GEORGETOWN, GUYANA

 The Commission Is Qualified. The Process Is Not Explained.

President Ali names five credible experts to the MV Barima inquiry — and answers none of the questions his method has raised

By the Editorial Board

There is no serious case to be made against the competence of the five people President Irfaan Ali named on Sunday to the Commission of Inquiry into the capsizing of the MV Barima. On paper, this is as strong a panel as Guyana could plausibly assemble on short notice from within the Caribbean’s own bench of maritime and legal expertise. The problem is not who they are. It is that no one — not the President, not the Department of Public Information, not any minister — has said how they got there.

THE CREDENTIALS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE

Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith SC, the Commission’s chair, is a former Attorney General and Foreign Minister of Belize who went on to sit as a High Court judge and an acting Justice of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. He has appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Caribbean Court of Justice, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and currently serves as CARICOM’s High-Level Representative for Law and Criminal Justice — a position to which regional Heads of Government, not Georgetown, appointed him. Colleagues across the Eastern Caribbean bar have described his judgments as fast, rigorous, and difficult to challenge on appeal.

Dr Andrzej Jasionowski brings the technical core the inquiry will need. A Polish naval architect and marine engineer with a doctorate in damaged-vessel hydrodynamics from the University of Strathclyde, he has spent three decades building the forensic tools — flooding simulation, capsize-time modelling, structural failure analysis — that maritime accident investigators rely on internationally.

Captain Hamada Fouda is a working Senior Maritime Surveyor and Compliance Auditor with the Maritime Authority of Jamaica, giving the Commission a regulator’s eye on vessel condition, certification, and compliance history — precisely the terrain the MV Barima’s maintenance record will require.

Nyree Dawn Alfonso, an Attorney-at-Law in Trinidad and Tobago with a stated specialisation in Admiralty and Maritime Law, has litigated shipping and port-authority matters before that country’s Court of Appeal. Maritime law is a narrow bar; her inclusion is not decorative.

Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Hayden Pritchard served as Chief of Defence Staff of Trinidad and Tobago and was the first officer of that country’s Defence Force to hold flag rank, with thirty-three years in uniform spanning naval operations and security.

None of this is filler biography. It is the strongest possible answer to anyone tempted to dismiss the Commission on grounds of competence. This news media will not make that argument, because the record does not support it.

WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT SAID

Competence, however, is a different question from process — and it is on process that the President’s Sunday announcement said nothing at all.

Guyanese were told, in a video statement to Facebook, that these five “have been carefully selected for their independence, technical expertise, and proven ability.” They were not told who did the selecting, on what criteria, following what search, or with whose advice. No terms of appointment have been published. No enabling legal instrument exists yet — the President himself said on Sunday that “the necessary legal instruments required to give effect to this decision are currently being formalised.

 Five names were announced to a nation in mourning before the legal document constituting the body that will investigate its worst peacetime disaster had even been drafted.

Five names were announced before the document creating the Commission had even been drafted.

This is not a small omission. A Commission of Inquiry derives its authority, and its credibility, from the instrument that creates it and the transparency of the process that populates it.

Guyana has, within the past week, watched a broad and unusual coalition — APNU, WIN, the Forward Guyana Movement, the Alliance For Change, the Vigilant Political Action Committee, and the Guyana Human Rights Association — converge on a single demand: that the composition of this Commission not be decided by the executive alone, and that whatever process was used be transparent enough to survive scrutiny.

The President’s answer to that demand, so far, has been to proceed regardless and offer no account of the process afterward.

THE QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN OPEN

This new outlet is raising the following questions directly to the Office of the President, the Ministry of Legal Affairs, and the Department of Public Information, and will publish their answers in full when received:

  1. Who identified these five individuals? Was a shortlist prepared, and if so, by whom — a ministry, an external search, personal recommendation, or a regional body such as CARICOM?
  2. Were any of the five approached or consulted before Sunday’s announcement, and if so, when did those conversations begin? The timeline matters: was this a decision made in the days after the tragedy, or one that had been under consideration on a longer horizon?
  3. Was any facilitator, search firm, or intermediary organisation involved in identifying or vetting candidates, and if so, who commissioned that work and what did it cost the public purse?
  4. What vetting was conducted for conflicts of interest — financial, professional, or personal — between any Commissioner and any party whose conduct the Commission may examine, including the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Public Utilities and Aviation, the Maritime Administration Department, and any private contractor connected to the MV Barima’s construction, refit, or the March 2026 rehabilitation tender?
  5. Why was the parliamentary opposition not consulted, given that the Leader of the Opposition has publicly confirmed he was not, and given that the National Assembly was scheduled to debate opposition motions on the same matter the following day?
  6. When will the legal instrument establishing the Commission be published, and will it include the selection process, the terms of reference in full, and the Commission’s funding and reporting arrangements?

None of these questions casts doubt on Justice Smith, Dr Jasionowski, Captain Fouda, Ms Alfonso, or Rear Admiral Pritchard. They cast doubt on a government that has, once again, treated the manner of its own decision-making as beneath explanation — even when the subject is the deadliest peacetime disaster in the country’s history, and even when the demand for transparency came not from a single opposition voice but from across the political spectrum and civil society alike.

Guyanese families are owed a Commission whose findings they can trust. That trust is built twice — once in the quality of the people asked to do the work, and once in the visible integrity of how they were chosen.

The President has, this week, answered only the first half of that obligation. This publication will keep asking about the second until he answers it too.

— The Board

OPEN LETTER

/0 Comments/in , /by

 

THE 592 GUARDIAN ◊ OPEN LETTER ◊· ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY 

OPEN LETTER

To the President, Cabinet, Parliament, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Guyana Police Force, MARAD, and the People of Guyana

We write with urgency, anger, and sorrow over the MV Barima tragedy, a disaster that has left a trail of death, missing persons, shattered families, and a nation demanding answers. This is not a moment for managed optics, selective explanations, or insiders marking their own homework. It is a moment for truth, independence, and full public accountability.

The facts already disclosed are damning enough to justify immediate and uncompromising action. Official and media reports indicate major discrepancies in the manifest, questions about loading and oversight, arrests and criminal probes, and the removal of staff connected to the vessel’s management pending investigation. That alone is enough to show that this matter cannot be credibly handled by anyone whose office, decisions, or silence may be part of the chain of failure.

For that reason, we are demanding therecusal of all public officers who had any direct or indirect involvement, responsibility, supervisory authority, or institutional interest in the MV Barima matter. That includes officers involved in vessel loading, passenger registration, safety enforcement, manifest verification, emergency response, ministerial oversight, or internal administration. A public officer cannot sit in judgment over a system they helped operate, defend, or conceal.

We state this plainly: the public has no obligation to trust a process controlled by persons who may be compromised by proximity, loyalty, career interest, or prior decision-making. If the investigation is to mean anything, then it must be clean at the root, not merely polished at the surface. Independent maritime inquiry standards exist for precisely this reason: to preserve impartiality, prevent interference, and protect public confidence in the final findings.

Accordingly, we call for the following:

  1. Immediate recusal of all public officers with any connection to the MV Barima tragedy.
  2. Immediate preservation of all evidence, records, manifests, surveillance footage, communications, and response logs.
  3. Full independence for any commission of inquiry, with no political or administrative interference.
  4. Public disclosure of all findings, recommendations, and disciplinary or criminal referrals.
  5. Protection for witnesses, survivors, whistleblowers, and families from intimidation or pressure.
  6. A permanent overhaul of maritime safety, inspection, and manifest control systems to prevent a repeat of this catastrophe.
  7. Full open cooperation and communications with the Joint Opposition.

This tragedy is not merely an accident to be managed; it is a test of whether the state can tell the truth about itself. If officials implicated by duty or association remain anywhere near the process, then the inquiry risks becoming a shield for the system instead of a search for justice. That would be an insult to the dead, the missing, and every family now waiting for answers.

The people of Guyana deserve more than condolences and press conferences. They deserve accountability without interference, investigation without self-protection, and justice without delay.

Signed,

Concerned Citizens, Civil Society Advocates, and Defenders of Transparency and Accountability

Date: July 23 2026. 

“The Power Of The People is Greater Than The People In Power “

 

 

GRACE AND GRASPING: THE ACCOUNTABILITY DIVIDE

/0 Comments/in /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦Independent Accountability Journalism

GRACE AND GRASPING: THE ACCOUNTABILITY DIVIDE

Starmer Exits with Honor; Norton Clings On Despite Ruin  The Editorial Board — The 592 Guardian

Two Leaders, One Standard

Politics is a brutal business. In mature democracies, leaders are held accountable — by their parties, by parliament, and ultimately by the voters. Sir Keir Starmer understood that. On 22 June 2026, just under two years after leading Labor from fourteen years in the wilderness to a historic landslide, Starmer announced his resignation as both Prime Minister and Labor Party leader.

He did not wait to be defenestrated. He left with his dignity intact.

The circumstances that drove him out were unsparing. His net approval rating had collapsed to negative sixty-six percent. His government lost Wales to Plaid Cymru for the first time in a century of Labor dominance. Cabinet ministers — including Health Secretary Wes Streeting — resigned before he did. When it became clear that Andy Burnham’s emphatic by-election victory had crystallized the parliamentary arithmetic against him, Starmer read the room and stepped aside. He did not require a formal vote of no confidence, a constitutional crisis, or an indignant press release from his own Central Executive Committee. He simply went.

Contrast that with Aubrey Norton. After presiding over APNU’s worst electoral result since 1957 — reduced to approximately eighteen percent of the national vote, supplanted as the main opposition by a newcomer party, WIN, that did not exist at the last election — Norton refuses to go. He has not merely clung to his position; he has announced his intention to contest the PNCR leadership again at the next Congress, while simultaneously ruling out the presidency. The logic, apparently, is that he will remain atop the apparatus of a collapsing party without having to face voters again. This is not statecraft. It is entrenchment.

The Anatomy of Norton’s Tenure

The record of Aubrey Norton’s leadership of the PNCR is not a matter of interpretation. It is documented devastation. Since he assumed the party leadership in December 2021, the PNCR has hemorrhaged senior figures at a rate that suggests not merely a personality clash at the top but a structural collapse of organizational confidence. Former parliamentarians, regional chairmen, and long-standing constituency executives have publicly abandoned Congress Place, with several crossing to the PPP/C ahead of the September 2025 elections — a political humiliation without recent precedent.

Amna Ally, the late former General Secretary who gave more than half a century to the PNCR, resigned with a letter urging Norton and his entire executive to “hang their heads in shame.” That is not the language of factional grievance. That is the verdict of institutional memory.

In the 2025 general and regional elections, APNU lost Region Ten — Linden, Norton’s own stronghold — to WIN. It lost majority control in Georgetown. It lost its historic position as the official opposition in the National Assembly. A party built over six decades of organizational discipline, forged in the era of Forbes Burnham, now commands less than one fifth of the national vote. And at the helm of this wreckage: a leader who insists he is needed to guide the “rebuilding process.”

The Central Executive Committee, to its considerable discredit, has provided cover. Its post-election statement reaffirmed “complete confidence” in Norton’s leadership while declining to address the electoral collapse or offer any diagnosis of failure. Its constitutional argument — that only a duly convened Congress can remove the leader — is technically accurate and morally evasive. Constitutionalism deployed as a shield against accountability is not principle. It is proceduralism in the service of power.

What Accountability Looks Like

Starmer did not lose a single election. He won one of the most commanding majorities in Labor’s history. Yet when his government’s failures became undeniable and his party’s confidence was withdrawn, he left. There was no hostage-taking, no constitutional manuevre, no announcement that he alone possessed the institutional knowledge required to steady a turbulent ship. He gave a speech, set a timetable, and stood aside.

That is what accountability looks like. It does not require the subject to celebrate his own departure. It requires only that he recognize that leadership is conditional on the confidence of those being led — and that when that confidence is gone, so is the mandate.

Norton appears to have arrived at the opposite conclusion: that the worse things get, the more indispensable he becomes. That the party’s crisis is not evidence of his failure but rather the proof of the chaos that would engulf it without his steadying hand. This is the psychology of incumbency untethered from results. It is the logic of every leader who has mistaken the apparatus of power for a personal inheritance.

Power, Patronage, and the Third-Term Manuevre

Norton’s persistence is troubling in isolation. It becomes more troubling when considered alongside what is now being discussed, with increasing urgency, in Guyanese political circles.

Reports reaching this Editorial Board — not yet independently verified and attributed here as credible political intelligence rather than confirmed fact — suggest that elements within the governing coalition are actively exploring whether opposition parliamentarians can be induced to support a constitutional amendment that would permit a third presidential term. If true, this would implicate the offices of President Irfaan Ali and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo in what amounts to the targeted corruption of the legislature.

This is not without historical parallel. Jagdeo himself sought, through judicial channels, to clear the path for a third term during his own presidency — and was turned back by the courts. That attempt failed. The question now being raised is whether, with a fragmentary opposition, a weakened PNCR, and a National Assembly already made pliable by the erosion of meaningful check, a second attempt — this time through parliamentary means and financial persuasion — might succeed where litigation did not.

We are not in a position to name names or cite on-record sources at this stage. We are in a position to say this:

The allegation is specific, is circulating at senior levels, and deserves urgent and transparent denial from the Office of the President and the Vice President. The silence of the powerful is not innocence. It is a provocation to ask harder questions

 Lord Acton’s axiom has never required revision: power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A government that has already accumulated substantial control over Guyana’s regulatory architecture, media environment, and patronage networks does not need a third term to become a threat to democratic governance. It is already one. A third term would simply formalize what is already structural.

The Broader Lesson for Guyana

The Starmer-Norton juxtaposition is not offered here as an exercise in comparative politics for its own sake. It is offered because Guyana’s political culture has normalized a relationship between leaders and power that most functional democracies would find unrecognizable. In Britain, a Prime Minister who won a landslide eighteen months ago resigned when his party lost confidence.

In Guyana, a party leader who oversaw the worst electoral collapse in his party’s modern history is positioning himself for another term at the helm — and the governing party is allegedly shopping for votes to extend presidential tenure beyond constitutional limits.

 

These are not unrelated pathologies. They are symptoms of the same disease:

A political class that has internalized the assumption that accountability is something that happens to other people. That electoral defeat is a condition to be managed rather than a verdict to be respected. That the constitution is an instrument to be navigated rather than a constraint to be honored.

 Guyana’s citizens — those who voted for APNU and those who did not, those who support the PPP/C and those who do not — deserve leaders who understand, as Keir Starmer apparently understood on the morning of 22 June 2026, that the people’s verdict is final.

Aubrey Norton has not learned this. If the third-term reports carry any truth, neither has the governing Party.

The Editorial Board

The 592 Guardian ♦June 2026

Land-gate, Sheepgate, Fowl-gate: Resign or Remain

/0 Comments/in /by

THE 592. GUARDIAN. ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA 

Land-gate, Sheepgate, Fowl-gate: Resign or Remain

The question has been put to me in no uncertain manner: should Pres Ali resign?  It’s my sabbath, so the answer will have to wait.  Also, let this much be said in the open-air: whatever the recommendations I offer my president, it would be for his ears only.  Having said that, there’s still my duty to the Guyanese people.  When the people ask questions, the people must get answers.

No one, neither man nor woman, should stick around when his name has become mud.  When there’s no basis, the claims are unfounded, then he must take the fight to the enemy.  Stick around and stick it to the wackos and sickos.  I did.  Pres Ali has a lot of land.  Means that there’s plenty mud for him to wade through when it rains.  Rocky ground when the heat arrives, the slush freezes.  Where could this lead: heaven or hell.  Moreover, Pres Ali has a ton of sheep, cows by the cargo plane, and shrimp by the seine full.  It’s a wonderful life when a man has a sweet weekend resort to retreat to, and listen to the grass grow.  But all those flocks of richly fed fowls and ducks, cows and sheep, tells me that Pres Ali has a considerable amount of manure to navigate around.  He may do so successfully.  But the odors, Mr. President.  Odors of that kind have a habit of clinging stubbornly.  Like secondhand cigarette smoke, that is also hazardous to health.  Including politicos.  Even presidents don’t have the proper level of immunity in such situations.

Resign in the wake (and stench) of Pres Ali’s Animal Farm.  Should he, or shouldn’t he?  Having myself managed with more than one PPP Govt-inspired witch-hunt, the president may try his luck.  I remind him of this one nonnegotiable condition: it would be better if he has no brooms lying around in secret compartments.  Those are dead giveaways and spur on the hunters to more raucous efforts.  I use the opportunity to remind Pres Ali and his posse of that old truism: what goes around comes around.  I warned he and his people: don’t mess with me.  Well, his own people now turn against he (and he against them) in a war of words, claims and counterclaims, over sheep, land, fowl and duck.  Guyana (and the PPP) has degenerated into a regular meat market.  Me, I still going to chuch, reading my Bible, keeping the faith.  Caution: Mock Maker! And a reckoning comes.  All those piety stops in off-limits houses represented the lows in political hypocrisy.  Using god, and recruiting some greedy pastors to sell their souls (and flocks), has payback.  Indeed, there’s a time for everything under the sun. 

There was a time when Mohamed Irfaan Ali and Azruddin Mohamed monopolized the laughter in Guyana.  Now, it seems, is their time for pointing fingers at one another, trading insults, and weeping.  There was a time when Dr. Ali’s people said that I am Mohamed’s people.  Now the same Mohamed alleges that Dr. Ali is that kind of people.  Land in Long Creek.  Lan-tun posts by the Linden Highway.  Lakes for a languid fish life.  The common denominator is the national leader.  According to him, the banks have his

back (loans).  According to him, he has the papers to drive some perverse people out of the press.  From storied English Literature, I use Lady Macbeth to remind Excellency All all the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.”  He has some sanitizing to do.  Capable of doing so, I think.  Must strive, deliver.

The question lingers.  Hints rejected.  Strongarm maneuvers tried.  Should he resign?  Should he stay and reign?  He does and he is shaggier than the sheep on that farm.  Bad when dry.  Worse when it is wet.  The smell that overpowers.  I am trying to give the president some subtle nudges on how to save face. 

The longer he sticks around, the greater the risk that there is nothing left to save.  A considerable amount of damage done.  It is time I leave.

THE 592. GUARDIAN. ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM

 

PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE MR.PRESIDENT

/1 Comment/in /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM 

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

This commentary is a collaboration between Transparency Institute Guyana (TIGI), Rescue Guyana, and The 592 Guardian. It is a public service appeal in the interest of equity and fairness at a critical moment when Guyana’s investment profile is under close scrutiny. We call for urgent, transparent action to protect the nation’s reputation and the public trust.

Mr. President: Produce the Evidence — Let Transparency Protect Our Future

Guyana stands at an inflection point. New wealth, vast opportunity, and global scrutiny have placed our nation under a microscope. That is why the recent LOO expose — and the President’s reported claim that he possesses documents to rebut it — cannot be allowed to drift into opaque denials and partisan debate. The stakes are too high. The public deserves answers; investors deserve clarity; the rule of law deserves the chance to do its work.

If President Irfaan Ali indeed holds documents that disprove or contextualize the allegations, the responsible and patriotic course is straightforward: submit them for independent forensic verification. To withhold or to obscure facts is to invite suspicion, to corrode institutional trust, and to make Guyana a riskier place for credible capital. Worse, opacity opens a door to malign actors who profit from secrecy.

We therefore issue this public challenge, on behalf of Transparency Institute Guyana (TIGI), Rescue Guyana, and The 592 Guardian: present the documents. Deliver originals or certified copies to TIGI for immediate, supervised forensic review. If certain materials are claimed confidential, provide the legal basis and allow TIGI secure access to assess authenticity.

Beyond documents, the LOO’s reporting raises allegations of coercion by phone that may amount to criminal conduct. If there is any truth to those claims, they must be investigated promptly. We ask the President — and the other party implicated — to release or permit inspection of relevant call and text logs covering the period in question, or to provide them to TIGI under a secure, legally compliant process.

Call for independent verification
We propose TIGI be empowered to conduct a thorough forensic analysis — metadata, chain of custody, and alteration testing — supported, if necessary, by mutually agreed international experts. Let Transparency International or comparable bodies assist where technical or reputational independence is needed. The findings should be published in full so the public and investors can judge for themselves.

Protecting investment, protecting democracy
Investor confidence rests on predictable institutions and honest governance. Unanswered allegations against the presidency risk not only reputational damage but real economic harm: legitimate investors will hesitate; the wrong actors may be drawn to exploit uncertainty.

Transparency is the most effective safeguard for both our democratic integrity and our economic future.

Legal respect, not political theatre
We acknowledge privacy concerns and legitimate legal limits. This appeal is not a demand for sensational exposure but a call for lawful, measured transparency. If legal restrictions prevent public release, create a secure, limited-access review that still delivers independent verification and a public summary of findings.

What justice looks like
If the documents and communications vindicate the President, a full public clarification and restoration of reputation should follow, with assurances to prevent similar doubts in future. If they do not, political accountability and legal processes should proceed without obstruction.

A civic duty
At moments like this, civic actors must act as custodians of the public interest. Our organizations stand ready to cooperate with state institutions, the DPP, and forensic experts to ensure a process that is fair, timely, and final.
The choice is clear. Produce the evidence. Let independent experts examine it. Allow the truth to steer our nation’s future — not rumor, not secrecy, and not fear.
Signed,
Transparency Institute Guyana (TIGI)
Rescue Guyana
The 592 Guardian

TWO LANGUAGES ONE CARGO HOLD

/0 Comments/in /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN ACCOUNTABILITY ♦OBJECTIVITY ♦TRUTH         
Two Languages, One Cargo Hold

Marco Rubio did not misspeak on April 30th. He was not caught off guard by a hot mic or ambushed by a hostile reporter. He stood at a Cabinet table, in front of the President of the United States, and described his own government’s programme in the plainest terms available to him: send us your worst, we will pay other countries to take them, and the farther those countries are from our border, the better we will feel about it.
That is not a leak. That is a mission statement.

Now hold that statement next to what Guyana’s government has told its own citizens. Robert Persaud, on January 5th, speaking of “productive discussions on a framework of understanding” — language built entirely from the passive voice, the kind of sentence that commits its author to nothing. Then the unnamed sources, doing the work the Foreign Secretary wouldn’t: skilled non-felons, coming voluntarily, screened labor-market entrants that a booming economy happens to need. Then the President, four days later, pointing to a statement that Stabroek News discovered did not exist.

Three separate registers, describing what is supposedly one agreement. Rubio’s is the only one anyone can verify, because Rubio is the only one who said it on the record, in public, in his own voice, for a domestic American audience he had no reason to flatter. Guyana’s version exists only in the conditional mood and the anonymous quote — a document nobody outside the executive has read, characterized by people who won’t put their names to the characterization.

That asymmetry is the story. When the salesman’s pitch and the buyer’s alibi contradict each other this completely, the burden isn’t on the public to reconcile them. It’s on the government to explain which one is true — and if the diplomatic note really does say only that Guyana will not torture or refoule anyone, without saying who is coming, how many, screened by whom, removable to where, then the government has not resolved the contradiction. It has simply declined to write down enough to be caught in it.

The legal exposure compounds the political one. Guyana is not a party to the Refugee Convention. It has no domestic asylum statute. UNHCR’s presence here has thinned. A person who has already convinced a U.S. immigration judge that return to their home country means torture, and who is then routed to Guyana instead — under a framework with no disclosed floor of protections and no treaty obligation binding Guyana to honor the U.S. judge’s finding — is a person whose protection now rests entirely on the discretion of an administration that cannot even accurately describe its own agreement to its own press corps.
We’re right that the “despicable” framing deserves scrutiny, and not as a rhetorical gotcha — as the actual hinge of the piece. Rubio built his justification on a category (child rapists, perverts, “despicable human beings”) that conveniently forecloses sympathy before any file is examined.

But third-country removal, as designed, doesn’t require a conviction for anything resembling what he described — it requires only that the person’s home country won’t take them back and a receiving country will. The rhetoric supplies the moral cover; the mechanism doesn’t require the moral crime it advertises. That gap is worth naming directly: Guyana is being asked to take Rubio’s word for who’s on the plane, using a word — despicable — that he gets to define and no Guyanese official gets to verify.
Six months of silence following a signature does not read as caution. It reads as a government that got what it wanted from the framing — “refugees,” “skilled,” “voluntary,” “screenable” — and now has no incentive to supply the text that would test whether that framing survives contact with it.

The question for One Guyana and for the Constitutional Reform Commission submission isn’t just whether this agreement is wise. It’s whether an executive can bind the state to an undisclosed instrument, on a matter with this much exposure to non-refoulement liability, without the National Assembly ever seeing the text. If the answer under current practice is yes, that is itself the governance failure — independent of what the note actually says.

Gone: The Data Commissioner

/1 Comment/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN

Independent Accountability Journalism

 EDITORIAL •ACCOUNTABILITY

June 2026

Gone: The Data Commissioner, the Witness, and the Charade of Accountability

 On Monday, the high-profile elections fraud trial proceeding before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court was adjourned — not because justice had run its course, but because the State’s own witness had apparently run away.

Aneal Giddings, who served as Information Technology Manager at the Guyana Elections Commission during the catastrophically contested March 2020 General and Regional Elections, is currently out of the jurisdiction. The prosecution, unable to produce him, applied to have his evidence-in-chief received via Zoom. Defence attorney Nigel Hughes objected on grounds that a witness of Giddings’ centrality to the case must appear in person for cross-examination — a position this publication considers entirely correct as a matter of both law and elementary fairness.

Magistrate McGusty offered a reasonable compromise: remote evidence-in-chief, with Giddings present in person for cross-examination. The prosecution sought instructions. When the matter was recalled, the State’s preference was to defer his testimony entirely — until he becomes available.

The court was then informed that the next scheduled witness is former Minister of Home Affairs Robeson Benn, expected on Wednesday, June 24. The trial grinds on. But the question this development raises does not grind on quietly. It detonates.

 The Double Vacancy at the Heart of Guyana’s Digital State

Here is what the public record now compels us to state plainly: Aneal Giddings is not merely a reluctant witness in an elections fraud prosecution. He is, simultaneously, Guyana’s newly appointed Data Protection Commissioner — the sole officer of a statutory body whose mandate is to regulate the collection, storage, processing, and transfer of personal data in a country where an oil boom has accelerated state and corporate data-harvesting at a pace that existing law is utterly ill-equipped to address.

Sources available to The 592 Guardian indicate that Giddings has not temporarily travelled. He has migrated permanently to New York.

If this is accurate, then Guyana currently has no functioning Data Protection Commissioner. The office is not dormant. It is abandoned. And in that vacuum, data harvesting proceeds — commercial, governmental, and extractive — without the statutory oversight the legislature intended when it established the Data Protection Act.

We ask the Ali administration directly: Is the Data Protection Commission operational? Is Aneal Giddings being paid from the public purse while residing permanently in New York? Has the government received formal notice of his departure or his intention to vacate the office? And if he has vacated it in fact if not yet in law, when does the administration intend to tell the Guyanese people?

 A Witness in an Elections Fraud Trial Cannot Simply Be Unavailable

Giddings is not a peripheral figure in this prosecution. As GECOM’s IT Manager during the 2020 elections, he occupied one of the most consequential technical positions in what became the most disputed electoral count in Guyana’s post-independence history. The charges before the court — nineteen counts of conspiracy, implicating Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers, former PNCR Chairperson Volda Lawrence, and others — rest substantially on what happened to the data during that count. Giddings sits at the technical centre of that question.

The defence is right to insist on in-person cross-examination. The State was right to acknowledge it cannot proceed otherwise. But what neither acknowledgement addresses is the deeper structural embarrassment now before this court and this country: the prosecution’s key technical witness has emigrated, and the government that is prosecuting the case appointed that same witness to a statutory regulatory post that now sits empty.

How does one square that appointment with due diligence? Did no one in the relevant ministry ask whether a witness in a live criminal prosecution — one touching directly on his conduct at GECOM — was an appropriate candidate for a statutory office requiring continuous and in-country presence? Or was the appointment itself a form of patronage extended to a figure whose continued cooperation with the prosecution required some form of inducement?

We do not assert the latter as fact. We assert it as a question the public is entitled to have answered, openly, by the administration that made the appointment.

 The Data Protection Vacuum Is Not a Technicality

Guyana’s Data Protection Act was enacted to govern a landscape that is rapidly becoming one of the most consequential regulatory terrains in the country’s modern history. State agencies collect biometric data. Oil companies and their contractors collect proprietary geological data that doubles as territorial intelligence. Telecommunications providers harvest communications metadata. Commercial banks and fintechs process transaction data that, in aggregate, constitutes an intimate record of economic life.

The Data Protection Commissioner is not a ceremonial post. It is the statutory checkpoint between Guyanese citizens and the entities — state and private — that seek to exploit their personal data for commercial or political advantage. In a petrostate economy characterised by procurement opacity, regulatory capture, and institutional thinness, that checkpoint matters.

If the Commissioner’s chair is empty because the appointee has migrated to New York while nominally holding office, then data harvesting is proceeding in a legislative context that provides for oversight but in practice provides none. The companies drilling into Guyana’s data ecosystem — like the companies drilling into its seabed — are operating in a surveillance-friendly vacuum.

The legislature did not pass the Data Protection Act so that it could be administered by a phantom.

 What the Administration Must Do

The 592 Guardian calls on the Ali administration to immediately clarify the status of Aneal Giddings’ appointment as Data Protection Commissioner, including whether he has formally resigned, whether he continues to draw salary or allowances, and whether any acting appointment has been made in his absence.

We call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to publicly address the implications of the prosecution’s key witness having emigrated, and to explain what assurances — if any — the State has secured regarding his return and availability to testify.

We call on the National Assembly’s relevant committee to summon the Minister responsible for the Data Protection Act to account for the operational status of the Commission. The people of Guyana are entitled to know whether the Act they funded through their parliamentary representatives is being administered or merely filed.

And we call on civil society — particularly the legal profession, technology sector advocates, and human rights organisations — to monitor this vacancy actively. The absence of a functioning Data Commissioner is not an administrative oversight. It is a governance failure with direct consequences for every Guyanese whose personal data is being collected, processed, and traded while the office meant to protect them sits dark.

 The elections fraud prosecution is, at its core, a test of whether Guyana’s institutions will hold those who violated the democratic will of the people accountable. If its witnesses can emigrate and its statutory officers can vanish without consequence, that test is already failing. Guyana cannot prosecute electoral fraud on Mondays and tolerate institutional abandonment on Tuesdays. The law applies, or it does not.

 — The Editors, The 592 Guardian

The MOAP Conduit: Ghost Payroll at the Gas-to-Energy Site

/0 Comments/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN

EDITORIAL   |   June 2026

The MOAP Conduit: Ghost Payroll at the Gas-to-Energy Site

A leaked digital payment trail at Wales reveals an undocumented foreign workforce paid outside Guyana’s tax and labour laws — and exposes a pattern this newspaper has now documented twice in two months.

The Wales, West Bank Demerara campsite is presented by the Irfaan Ali administration as the flagship achievement of Guyana’s energy transition. Reporting built on leaked digital payment records and worker testimony now establishes that it is also the site of a payroll structure engineered to keep hundreds of foreign labourers outside the reach of Guyana’s labour and tax regime. The workers building the Gas-to-Energy plant for Lindsayca are not paid by Lindsayca or by any of its named partners. They are paid by an intermediary identified as MOAP Inc., a company whose paper directors sit atop a structure tightly bound to Lindsayca’s supply chain.

The mechanics are not subtle. Disbursements move in bulk into digital wallets rather than through the banking system, and the payment confirmations reviewed by reporters show no NIS contribution and no income tax withheld on any of them. Of the roughly 1,500 people working the site, only 50 are Guyanese. The remainder are, on the available evidence, substantially undocumented — holding no valid work permit, and dependent for both income and protection on a company most could not properly identify if asked to.

One worker, speaking only on condition of anonymity, put it plainly: workers paid through MOAP have “little recourse and are afraid for our job and income.” He asked why Minister of Labour Keoma Griffith has never visited or inspected the site. It is a modest demand — an inspection — and it is one the Ministry has, by every account available to this news outlet, failed even once to meet. No labour inspection. No work-permit verification. No site visit, on a project of this scale and public cost. That is not oversight. It is abdication.

Readers of this publication will recognize the architecture, because we have already documented its near-identical twin this year. Our reporting on the EKAA HRIM labour case at the Batavia quarry — built on an ILO submission dossier — set out a dual-contract structure and cross-border wage-splitting arrangement bearing several recognized indicators of forced labour. The Wales/MOAP arrangement, on the facts now public, shares the same load-bearing features: an opaque intermediary standing between principal contractor and worker, payment routed to defeat statutory deduction, and a workforce rendered too vulnerable by its own undocumented status to report what is being done to it.

That two of Guyana’s highest-profile, foreign-financed projects — one in quarrying, one in energy infrastructure — have independently converged on the same payroll concealment model in the same calendar year is the detail that should alarm Georgetown more than either case in isolation. It is no longer credible to treat either as an isolated contractor’s misconduct. It is now evidence of a structural gap: Guyana has no functioning inspection regime for the manpower and intermediary-payment companies operating inside its largest capital projects, and contractors on both sides of the economy appear to know it.

That gap persists because no one with the authority to close it has chosen to. The GTE Taskforce, chaired by Winston Brassington, has spent much of the past two years defending Lindsayca’s position on the project through cost overruns and contentious proceedings before the Dispute Adjudication and Amicable Settlement Board. Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, by every indication available to this newspaper, continues to favour Lindsayca as the frontrunner for Phase Two. A payroll structure that appears designed to defeat NIS and tax law has done nothing, so far, to disturb that confidence.

This is not an allegation of personal wrongdoing against Mr. Brassington or the Vice President individually. It is an indictment of pattern: a procurement and oversight architecture, spanning extractive industry and infrastructure alike, that treats statutory compliance as negotiable so long as the contractor remains politically favoured and the project remains politically convenient to defend.

This publication is not interested in waiting for an internal review that will not be conducted. We are calling, on the record, for four concrete actions: an immediate and unannounced inspection of the Wales campsite by the Ministry of Labour and the Guyana Revenue Authority; full public disclosure of MOAP Inc.’s beneficial ownership and its contractual relationship to Lindsayca; a National Insurance Scheme audit of every wage disbursement processed through MOAP since the project’s start; and a joint inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Foreign Relations into how an unaudited intermediary payroll company gained access to the country’s largest infrastructure project in the first place.

Failing that, this is a matter for the International Labour Organization, which is already reviewing a comparable dossier arising from Batavia. Guyana’s energy transition cannot be built, literally, on the unpaid statutory obligations of an undocumented workforce too frightened to come forward under its own name. A worker has already asked the Minister of Labour to visit his own jobsite. He should not have had to.

— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board