After 100 Days, the Opposition Returns—And Still Misses the Point
A government is only as accountable as its Opposition is effective. By that measure, Guyana’s Opposition has just delivered one of its weakest performances in recent memory.
After more than 100 days without a sitting of the National Assembly—100 days to prepare, to investigate, to build airtight lines of questioning—the Opposition has returned with a bloated but unfocused list that avoids the very pressure points where accountability is most urgently required.
This is not a failure of time. It is a failure of will, strategy, and political seriousness.
At the heart of the country’s governance crisis is the steady erosion of procurement safeguards and the explosion of no-bid contracting. Yet the Opposition has failed to mount sustained, targeted pressure on this issue. The no-bid street lighting contracts alone raise serious red flags—pricing, selection, execution—but where is the forensic questioning?
Where is the relentless pursuit of answers on the Gas-to-Energy (GtE) project, now burdened by cost escalations and shifting narratives? Where is the structured dismantling of the Karpowership agreement, with its long-term financial implications for taxpayers?
Billions have been advanced for infrastructure—roads, pump stations—yet many remain incomplete while contractors walk away with mobilization fees. This is not mismanagement; it is a pattern. And patterns demand exposure. Instead, the Opposition offers fragments.
The GOAL scholarship program—once touted as transformative—now sits under a cloud of unanswered questions: refunds, reallocations, and the quiet diversion of funds toward local institutions absent any transparent procurement framework. Silence on this issue is not oversight; it is complicity by omission.
Meanwhile, state resources are being deployed in ways that dangerously blur the line between governance and political campaigning. Cabinet outreaches have taken on the character of partisan mobilization exercises, funded by the public purse. The Vice President’s “open days” only deepen the concern: under what constitutional or statutory authority are these engagements being conducted, and within which defined portfolio?
The Digital ID rollout proceeds at pace, yet the legal safeguards meant to protect citizens remain hollow. The Data Protection Act exists, but enforcement is effectively absent. The Commissioner—reportedly based in Schenectady, New York—has no visible institutional footprint in Guyana. No office. No accessibility. No demonstrated oversight. Yet citizens are expected to hand over sensitive personal data into this vacuum.
Then there is Drainage and Irrigation—hundreds of billions expended over the years, and still, communities flood with predictable regularity. Where is the accountability for that spending? Where are the audits, the performance metrics, the consequences? If billions can be spent with so little to show, what exactly is being measured—delivery or depletion?
Even basic governance failures persist without sustained challenge. Region 10 remains without a substantive Administrative head. This is not a minor administrative oversight; it is a direct weakening of local governance structures. And yet, it barely registers in the Opposition’s line of attack.
What is presented instead is a patchwork of questions—procedural, scattered, and ultimately non-threatening. After 100 days, this is not scrutiny. It is theater without consequence.
Oversight is not about asking many questions. It is about asking the right questions, repeatedly, until answers are forced into the open. It requires precision, persistence, and a clear understanding of where power is being exercised without accountability.
The uncomfortable truth is this: when an Opposition fails to apply pressure where it matters most, it does not merely weaken itself—it strengthens the very system it claims to challenge.
Guyana is not suffering from a shortage of issues. It is suffering from a shortage of effective opposition.
And until that changes, accountability will remain optional
Questions the Opposition Should Be Asking
If the Opposition is serious about accountability, then the following questions—directed to specific sectors and their respective ministers—should already be on the Order Paper:
Natural Resources Sector (Minister of Natural Resources)
– How many large-scale and medium-scale mining concessions have been issued, transferred, or “flipped” over the past five years, and what total value has been derived from these transactions?
– What mechanisms exist to prevent the wholesale trading of concessions for massive private profit without corresponding benefit to the State?
– How much revenue has Guyana earned from concession transfers compared to the estimated private gains generated from resale or joint venture arrangements?
– What due diligence is conducted on concession holders to ensure they possess the technical and financial capacity to develop the resources?
– Why does Guyana continue to allow the effective speculation of its mineral assets with minimal taxation or oversight?
Public Works Sector (Minister of Public Works)
– How many contracts for roads, bridges, and pump stations have been awarded via restricted or no-bid processes in the past three years?
– What is the total value of mobilization fees paid to contractors for projects that remain incomplete or significantly delayed?
– What enforcement actions have been taken against defaulting contractors, and how much of those mobilization advances have been recovered?
Energy and Infrastructure (Prime Minister / Office of the President)
– What is the current total cost of the Guyana-to-Energy (GtE) project, and how has it changed from its original estimate?
– What penalties or renegotiation clauses exist within the Karpowership agreement to protect Guyana from long-term financial exposure?
– Who approved these agreements, and were they subjected to independent review?
Governance and Procurement (Attorney General / Ministry of Finance)
– How many contracts have been structured deliberately below procurement thresholds to avoid public tendering?
– What audits have been conducted into no-bid contracts, including the street lighting program, and will those reports be made public?
– What legislative reforms are being pursued to close procurement loopholes currently being exploited?
Human Services and Social Protection (Minister of Human Services)
– What measurable outcomes have been achieved from state-funded interventions targeting vulnerable populations, particularly in relation to adolescent pregnancy and child protection?
– How are funds allocated, tracked, and audited across these program?
Digital Governance and Data Protection (Office of the Prime Minister / ICT responsibility)
– Why is the Digital ID system being rolled out in the absence of a fully operational Data Protection framework?
– Where is the Data Protection Commissioner physically based, what resources are allocated to that office, and how can citizens access it?
– What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse or unauthorized access to citizens’ personal data?
Agriculture and State Investments (Minister of Agriculture)
– What is the total amount of state funding invested in projects such as Tacama Soya, Moblissa Dairy, and GUYSUCO over the past five years?
– What return on investment has been realized, and what independent audits have been conducted?
– What criteria are used to determine which private or semi-private ventures receive state financing?
Drainage and Irrigation (Minister of Agriculture / NDIA)
– How much has been spent on drainage and irrigation infrastructure over the past decade?
– Why do flooding events persist in key agricultural and residential areas despite this expenditure?
– What performance benchmarks exist, and who is held accountable when systems fail?
Public Administration (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development)
– Why does Region 10 remain without a substantive Administrative head?
– What impact has this had on governance, project execution, and service delivery in the region?
Executive Authority and Public Resources (Office of the Vice President)
– Under what official constitutional or statutory portfolio are the Vice President’s “open day” engagements conducted?
– What public funds are allocated to these activities, and how are they justified as governmental rather than political exercises?
These are not obscure or technical matters. They are central to the management of public resources, the rule of law, and the integrity of governance. Their absence from sustained parliamentary scrutiny is not accidental—it is indicative of an Opposition that has yet to fully assume its constitutional responsibilities.
What the Public Already Knows—and Why These Questions Matter
“These questions are not speculative. They arise from patterns, decisions, and outcomes already visible to the public—issues that demand structured parliamentary interrogation, not silence.
In the mining sector, there is growing concern that concessions are being treated less as instruments of national development and more as tradable assets—acquired, warehoused, and flipped for enormous private gain. Reports of joint ventures and transfers involving millions—sometimes billions—raise a fundamental question: how is it that Guyana’s natural wealth is generating windfalls for a few while yielding comparatively little for the State?
In public works, the evidence is physical and undeniable. Incomplete roads, underperforming pump stations, and delayed infrastructure projects dot the landscape. Yet contractors have already received substantial mobilization payments. The gap between disbursement and delivery is no longer anecdotal—it is systemic.
The Gas-to-Energy project continues to shift in scope and cost, with limited transparency on its final financial exposure. Similarly, the Karpowership agreement remains insufficiently interrogated, despite its long-term implications for energy pricing and national expenditure.
The procurement system itself shows signs of deliberate strain. Contracts repeatedly appear just below thresholds that would trigger competitive bidding. The no-bid street lighting program has further amplified concerns that entire categories of public works are being executed outside the spirit—if not the letter—of procurement law.
“The GOAL scholarship program, once widely celebrated, now raises uncomfortable questions about refunds, reallocations, and the quiet redirection of funds toward local institutions, linked to cronies. The absence of transparent processes has eroded public confidence.
“Meanwhile, the line between state and political activity appears increasingly blurred. Cabinet outreaches and high-profile “open day” engagements resemble organized political mobilization, all are funded by public resources. This raises constitutional concerns that go beyond optics—they strike at the proper use of state power.
On digital governance, the rollout of a national Digital ID system is proceeding without a credible enforcement framework for data protection. A Commissioner without visible infrastructure, accessibility, or public engagement does little to reassure citizens that their personal data is secure.
Drainage and Irrigation remain one of the clearest examples of expenditure without outcome. Despite hundreds of billions invested over the years, flooding persists with predictable regularity, affecting farmers, households, and entire communities. The issue is no longer whether money is being spent—but whether it is being spent effectively.
State-supported ventures such as Tacama Soya, Moblissa Dairy, and the ongoing financial demands of GUYSUCO continue to absorb public funds with limited transparency on performance or return. These are not marginal expenditures; they are significant fiscal commitments made in the name of national development.
Even administrative governance gaps—such as the continued absence of a substantive Administrative head in Region 10—reflect a broader pattern of neglect that weakens institutional oversight at the regional level.
“Taken together, these are not isolated concerns. They form a coherent picture of governance under strain—where transparency is uneven, accountability is inconsistent, and public scrutiny is too often absent where it matters most.
This is precisely why the questions must be asked—and why failing to ask them is not a minor oversight, but a fundamental lapse in representation.
