A BRIDGE TOO CONVENIENT

/0 Comments/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUTABILITY JOURNALISM.JULY 2026

A Bridge Too Convenient: What Suriname’s Unilateral Turn Says About Who Was Never Really in the Room

The 592 Guardian — Editorial.

On Monday night, in a Paramaribo budget debate most Guyanese never heard about until it was already history, Suriname’s Public Works Minister Stephen Tsang told his National Assembly that his government would finance the Corentyne River Bridge “100 per cent” on its own, that tolls were on the table, and that a new tender was “likely.”            On Tuesday, President Irfaan Ali told this reporter’s counterparts at Demerara Waves that he did not know who Tsang was, and that President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons had personally assured him — as recently as their last exchange — that Suriname was still “finalising their end of the arrangement.” Guyana, he insisted, was ready with its commitment. There was, he said, “only one thing we’re interested in and that is the joint development of the bridge.”

Two governments. One project. Two entirely different stories, told forty-eight hours apart, with a head of state professing ignorance of the named minister to a Guyanese newsroom rather than to his own Assembly.

 That gap deserves scrutiny on its own terms, before any theory of motive gets attached to it. Whatever Suriname’s calculus turns out to be, the sequence of events itself — nearly four years of joint procurement machinery, a named preferred contractor, repeated joint statements as recently as September 2025, and now a unilateral reversal aired first to Surinamese legislators — is the story. Everything that follows is an assessment of plausible scenarios, not a verdict.

What Is Actually Established

Strip away the diplomatic language and the record is precise. The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board opened bids in August 2023 from five pre-qualified contractors or joint ventures, all but one Chinese state-owned or state-linked. China Road & Bridge Corporation bid US$236,173,962, against Ballast Nedam Infra Suriname’s US$325.4 million.

By December 2024, Minister Juan Edghill was confirming CRBC as the jointly evaluated preferred contractor — selected by both the Guyanese and Surinamese evaluation teams, though without a signed construction contract, pending resolution of financing.

The financing question was never resolved because it could not be. Suriname’s IMF structural adjustment programme constrained its borrowing capacity, and by January 2024 both qualifying bidders had indicated they could not meet the pre-financing terms under the original Public-Private Partnership model, forcing both governments to pursue direct financing instead — including a joint approach to Beijing. That approach appears to have stalled indefinitely: Suriname had separately restructured $476 million in debt with China’s Exim Bank in November 2024, with $140 million already in arrears, a detail that should have been sitting on every desk in Georgetown as a warning sign about Suriname’s actual appetite for taking on new Chinese-linked debt for a “joint” bridge.

Through 2025, the diplomatic choreography continued undisturbed. Presidents Ali and Geerlings-Simons met in Nieuw Nickerie in September 2025 and reaffirmed their commitment to “continue close coordination to address outstanding legal, technical and financial matters,” with the bridge framed as integral to Amazonian regional interconnectivity. As recently as October 2025, Vice President Jagdeo was telling reporters the project would move at the pace at which we can reach an agreement on funding,”explicitly distinguishing it from unilateral Guyanese projects like the Berbice Bridge precisely because it was a shared undertaking requiring Suriname to raise its share.”

Then, in April 2026 — three months before Tsang’s announcement — the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on Government to halt discussions on the bridge altogether, citing Suriname’s “unilateral imposition of exorbitant fees for the use of shared waterways and accusing Paramaribo of enforcing measures that undermine Berbice’s development even as Guyana continued negotiating in good faith”. That is a material fact this editorial board has not seen adequately connected to Tuesday’s announcement in any Guyanese coverage so far: the private sector was already flagging bad faith on Suriname’s side months before Tsang stood up in the National Assembly.

Guyanese private sector bodies are warning that repeated controversy over Guyana’s border with Suriname is beginning to erode confidence in cross-border energy cooperation, after a map shown at the Suriname Energy, Oil and Gas Summit (SEOGS) 2026 depicted the New River Triangle as Surinamese territory.

 Scenario One: Fiscal Pragmatism, Badly Communicated

The least sinister reading is also the most mundane, and it should not be dismissed simply because it is boring. Suriname is servicing IMF-conditioned debt. A jointly financed, jointly tolled bridge under a DBFOM structure with a Chinese state contractor carries exactly the debt-trap profile that regional analysts have already flagged — the Hambantota Port precedent is not an abstraction to anyone advising Paramaribo on this financing structure If Surinamese technocrats concluded that a wholly Surinamese-financed, tolled asset is more bankable and less politically exposed than a bilateral arrangement requiring Guyanese sign-off on every design and tariff decision, that is a coherent, defensible policy shift. Under this reading, Tsang’s error was not the decision — it was springing it on Guyana’s president via a parliamentary answer rather than through the joint commission structure both sides had spent a year rebuilding.

This scenario does not require corruption. It requires only that Guyana’s government failed to notice, or failed to prepare for, a financing reality that the GCCI was publicly warning about in April.

Scenario Two: A Contractor Pipeline Already Compromised

This is the scenario the 592 Guardian’s initial read raises, and it merits being stated precisely rather than insinuated. If Suriname builds the bridge unilaterally and re-tenders, the previously “jointly evaluated” preferred contractor — CRBC — loses its automatic claim to the project. A new, Suriname-only tender means new evaluation criteria, a new procurement authority of record, and no obligation to honour a bilateral evaluation process Georgetown can no longer supervise or audit.

What would need to be true for this to be more than a hypothesis: evidence that specific Guyanese or
Surinamese officials had already extracted, been promised, or negotiated undisclosed benefits contingent on CRBC’s selection under the joint framework — and that a re-tender threatens to expose or unwind those arrangements.

 This publication has not seen such evidence, and none has been published by any outlet covering this story as of writing. The Diálogo Américas analysis on CRBC’s track record documented irregularities including labor rights violations and shoddy work across other jurisdictions where the company has operated — establishes that CRBC carries a global pattern warranting scrutiny. It does not establish anything about the Guyana-Suriname procurement specifically. Readers should hold this distinction firmly: a contractor’s bad track record elsewhere is grounds for demanding transparency here, not grounds for assuming skullduggery has already occurred.

If this writer’s instinct is right, the tell will not be in Tsang’s announcement — it will be in whichever entity Suriname’s new tendering procedure ultimately selects, and how quickly. A re-tender that lands, within months, on a contractor with any traceable relationship to the original bid pool, evaluation personnel, or financing intermediaries would be the concrete fact pattern worth an investigative follow-up. Absent that, this remains a scenario, not a finding.

Scenario Three: Suriname Monetizes What Guyana Was Prepared to Subsidize

The toll question is the detail that should worry Georgetown most regardless of which other scenario is true. A wholly Suriname-financed, Suriname-owned, Suriname-tolled bridge converts an asset both governments spent four years describing as mutual infrastructure into a Surinamese revenue instrument that Guyanese commercial traffic, fishermen, and cross-border trade will simply have to pay to use. Guyana’s 2025 budget had already earmarked GY$5 billion (US$23.9 million) toward its 50% share under the joint model. If that joint model is now dead, the operative question is not just who builds the bridge — it is whether Georgetown negotiated, or even attempted to negotiate, toll-rate protections, dispute mechanisms, or usage guarantees for Guyanese users before Suriname’s unilateral turn hardened into policy. Nothing in the public record indicates Guyana raised this possibility as a contingency at any point over the past four years. That is itself an accountability gap, independent of Suriname’s motives.

The Question This Editorial Board Is Actually Asking

Not “why did Suriname do this” — Paramaribo owes its own public an answer to that, and Minister Tsang has at least attempted to give one, however undiplomatically delivered. The question for Guyanese readers is narrower and squarely within this publication’s remit: why was President Ali “unaware”?

Four years of joint procurement architecture, a jointly named preferred contractor, and a September 2025 joint statement reaffirming “close coordination” do not evaporate without warning unless one side stopped communicating substantively months before the public announcement — which the GCCI’s April intervention suggests was already visible to Guyana’s private sector. Either Guyana’s diplomatic and technical teams were not picking up on deteriorating signals that industry stakeholders were seeing in real time, or they were picking them up and the public — including this newsroom — was not told. Both possibilities are failures of stewardship over a US$236 million binational asset and Guyana’s committed GY$5 billion stake in it. Neither requires Suriname to have acted in bad faith for Guyana’s own accountability question to stand.

President Ali’s posture — professing ignorance to a private newsroom rather than convening a public accounting of what Georgetown knew and when — is itself the story this editorial board will continue to pursue.         

If favoured contractors, financing intermediaries, or officials on either side of the Corentyne stood to gain from the joint framework’s collapse into a unilateral Surinamese tender, that will only surface through what happens next: who bids, who wins, and how fast. This publication will be watching the next tender notice as closely as we watched the last one.

The 592 Guardian’s editorial board applies its standing methodology to this matter: aspirations and announcements are treated as unverified until independently confirmed; verified findings are distinguished explicitly from unproven allegations; and institutional actors are named directly. Readers with knowledge of the original NPTAB evaluation process, financing negotiations, or any aspect of Suriname’s anticipated re-tender are invited to contact the editorial desk.

2026 1st HALF, LEADERSHIP. GOVERNANCE

/0 Comments/in , /by

 THE 592 GUARDIAN. GOVERNANCE♦ACCOUNTABILITY

2026 1st Half: Leadership, Governance

The first half of 2026 is over.  It’s really 10 months, a few days shorted.  I’m counting that Guyana’s New Era began with Pres Ali’s second inaugural.  Did he do better?  Did governance in Guyana climb out of its hole?  If so, was there a first step forward or many backwards?  

Or, given governance and leadership characters, did Guyanese get the wayward?  The sideways culture now normalized?

 Prime Minister Mark Anthony Phillips once a soldier, is now a political guerilla fighter.  More for party, less about country.  With that handle, Mark Anthony, he could be a Roman orator or a Puerto Rican singer.  Not he.  Let it be: a proud, honorable Guyanese.  Salutations, Marshall.  Not fire, think field.  PM Mark Anthony stood in Guyana’s equivalent of the Roman Forum, and perorated.  Stabroek News will be taken care of soon.  A man truer to his word there never was.  Stabroek News was taken care of, the PPP and Mark Phillips way: it died and was buried.  No resurrection.  

There’s regard for men of honor.  Leadership and governance, Guyana style, the PPP wiles.  I like.

 Another leader, one given to the garrulous and grandiose, is Guyana’s Master Governor.  Whoever never heard of Excellency Ali is a failed AI experiment.  In 2020, six years ago, not six months (or ten), Master Governor Ali swore to transparency and accountability.  For Guyanese to get access to information, they have to get valid passport, FBI clearance, U.S. visa, and a red shirt.  Naysayers, critics, and parasites are excluded.  No matter what they have.  Or what the law says.  Pres Ali in fits of the fanciful said that’s not his cup of tea.  British teaching.  Like Pontius Pilate, Irfaan Ali washed his hands clean of the vulgar access to info affair.  It’s Guyana’s Profumo Affair.  It’s Leadership 601.  Taught in the schools of Mao Zedong, Indira Gandhi, Narendra Modi, DJ Trump, and Benjamin Netanyahu.  Guyana’s Ali learned well.

Incidentally, he swore to unity in 2020.  One Guyana still birthed.  IDPADA-G almost died.  The people at Mocha got sanitized.  Some losing folks get a basketball.  Others got shot.  Seems a funny kind of unity, to me.

In September 2025 (Inaugural Palaver II), he promised an anti-corruption czar.  The people at Office of the President, Freedom House, and major procurement outfits had serious cases of diarrhea.  Their world almost ended.  Wiser heads prevailed.                                                                Chatter about anticorruption czar disappeared.  And, it’s only midyear.  See, why like PM Mark Anthony, there’s such regard for HE Ali!  PM Mark Anthony and Office of the Prime Minister are still in this gospel.  They also had a fit when Excellency Ali swore to go after peddlers of misinformation and disinformation.  Somebody gave him Confucius’ masterpiece: the hardest, the longest, journey begins with the first step.  Dr. Ali has been treating himself for cramps, since September 2025. 

Misinformation and disinformation, he discovered belatedly (or cleverly) is a PPP Govt monopolized, subsidized, and oversized business. 

 Bigger than Exxon.  Have concerns about Silica City?  Roll them, then smoke them.  Need to know how all the oil money was spent?  AK Singh has a machinegun called “national development priorities.”  A load of buckshot mixed with bull-s*** sprayed on Guyanese.  Who to watch more: Venezuelans with AK-47s or AK Singh with his scholarly arsenals?  This is leadership.  This is governance.

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo took a sabbatical post September 2025.  It was his own 9/11 great escape.  Reimages himself as Steve McQueen.  Who to put for 2030?  Policymaker or kingmaker?  Queenmaker isn’t a stretch.  Spoke of resuming his press conferences.  His handlers whispered: not the greatest idea.  PPP dirty laundry all hung out to dry.  Don’t make self a spectacle to deliver cheap shots.  The White people are appalled, shrink in disbelief (disgust also).  They have weight.  They count.  Cease and desist with all the carrying on and disgracing party, Cheddi, and the Yanquis.  Decency reigned; 2030 strategy priority took over.  Anil Nandlall couldn’t feature.  Not after the CCJ extradition embarrassment.  Though partially redeeming himself at the ICJ.  

Fellow Guyanese -the book on 2026, its midpoint.  Great news!  The second half looks identical.

THE MANDATE IS NOT DISCRETIONARY

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE
ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM • GOVERNANCE • ELECTORAL INTEGRITY.                                                                                                   

Editorial — Electoral Governance
The Mandate Is Not Discretionary: President Ali Must Act on Article 161

This is not a vacuum in the law. It is a vacuum manufactured by an Executive that prefers paralysis to a Leader of the Opposition it does not like.
The 592 Guardian | July 2026
Kaieteur News’s Peeping Tom column this week calls for the courts to “settle” the question of GECOM commissioner tenure, framing the dispute as an unresolved ambiguity that only judicial intervention can cure. It is a comfortable position for everyone content to wait. It is also wrong, and it lets the one actor with a present constitutional duty — the President of Guyana — off the hook entirely.
There is no ambiguity here. There is a refusal.

Two Provisions, Not One
Article 225, imported into the Elections Commission framework through Article 161(6), governs removal for cause: infirmity, misconduct, the disciplinary track that shields a sitting commissioner from being purged mid-term for political convenience.                                                                                    Nobody is invoking that provision against the opposition-nominated commissioners. Nobody has alleged misconduct. That is precisely why the “security of tenure” defence being raised on their behalf is a category error — it answers a question nobody asked.
The actual provision in play is Article 161(3)(b): three members appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, tendered after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental parties in the National Assembly. The text names an office, not an individual. It has always named the office. That is why the same phrase recurs, unaltered in meaning, in the appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice under Article 127, the Judicial and Public Service Commissions under Articles 198 and 200, and the GECOM Chairperson under Article 161(2) itself.
Follow the logic of “permanent commissioner” theory to its end and it collapses on contact with its own premise: had the 2025 elections returned a different government, would anyone seriously argue the opposition-nominated commissioners should answer to advice tendered by a Leader of the Opposition who no longer exists in that configuration? The theory only survives because it currently protects the people asserting it.

Where the Obligation Actually Sits
GECOM’s own Chairperson has already said, on the record, that she has no power to remove or reconstitute the Commission herself — that the Constitution assigns appointment and removal elsewhere, and that the path runs through the President once the Leader of the Opposition tenders his nominees. That is not an unsettled question. That is the President being told, by his own Commission’s Chairperson, where his desk is.
Azruddin Mohamed, as the sitting Leader of the Opposition following meaningful consultation, holds the sole constitutional standing to tender that advice under Article 161(3)(b). Not the immediate past Leader of the Opposition. Not the Forward Guyana Movement, however useful a third seat might be to a compromise communique The office, as currently occupied, and no other.

The President’s instruments of appointment are not a courtesy he extends when convenient. They are a duty triggered by the tendering of valid advice.

Whether the appointing power is exercised promptly or withheld indefinitely is therefore not a gap in the Constitution — it is a choice made daily inside the Office of the President. A choice, this publication notes, made considerably easier by the fact that the current Leader of the Opposition is no friend of this government.

What the Courts Cannot Fix
Peeping Tom is right that political compromise cannot override constitutional text. He is wrong about what the text requires the courts to resolve. A judicial reference would take months, invite appeal, and hand every interested party an incentive to relitigate a question the Constitution already answers in plain language. What it would not do is compel a President who is already declining to act under clear advice to suddenly act under a court order he can also slow-walk.

Guyana does not have a drafting problem at Article 161. It has an enforcement problem at the Office of the President.

The remedy is not five more months of uncertainty manufactured for the comfort of incumbents on both sides of the seat — it is the President discharging the duty the Constitution already places on him.

THE GUARDIAN’S DEMAND
President Irfaan Ali must formally receive the Leader of the Opposition’s Article 161(3)(b) nominees and issue the instruments of appointment within thirty days of their tender, consistent with the duty the Constitution already imposes on his office. Anything short of that is not constitutional caution. It is obstruction with a legal-sounding excuse.
— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board

THE AUDACITY OF THE UNACCOUNTABLE-Response to Freddie Kisson.

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN
Independent Accountability Journalism | Georgetown, Guyana
EDITORIAL | June, 2026

The Audacity of the Unaccountable
On Freddie Kissoon’s review of Moses Bhagwan’s memoir, and the question of who has earned the right to judge
FREDDIE KISSOON has spent decades styling himself as Guyana’s foremost public conscience — the lone scribe willing to hold power to account.

 That self-portrait demands examination. Because when a man who was targeted with a chemical substance in an attack widely attributed to operatives loyal to the People’s Progressive Party — reportedly orchestrated by Kwame McCoy — chooses,  a decade later, to align his editorial voice with that same political formation’s dismissal of Moses Bhagwan, something more than literary criticism is taking place. What we witness is capitulation dressed as authority.

Let us be plain about what Kissoon’s review of Bhagwan’s memoir, Enter The Political Kingdom, actually is: a settling of old scores wrapped in the language of intellectual disappointment. It is the work of a man who once shared Bhagwan’s terrain of opposition and who has, by degrees, vacated it — not for reasons of principle, but of proximity to power.

Kissoon reserves his most withering contempt for a man who spent his life building what Kissoon only ever wrote about

Moses Bhagwan is not a polemicist. He is a statesman of the civic tradition — the rarer and more demanding vocation

His two published works, Enter The Political Kingdom and Ancestors of the River, represent something Kissoon has never produced: a sustained, documented contribution to the archive of Guyanese national memory.

These are not columns dashed off between grievances. They are the considered testimony of a man who signed marriage certificates in 1979 while others were being killed for their politics, who built and sustained the Working People’s Alliance through state terror, and who committed decades of his life to the liberation of Guyanese from poverty, racial tribalism, and authoritarian governance.

Kissoon accuses Bhagwan of political dishonesty and an anti-Jagan obsession. These are serious charges, rendered unserious by their source. The Kissoon who now writes these words is not the Kissoon of the 1980s. This is a Kissoon who, by his own published admission, went silent in April 2020 — the precise moment when silence carried the highest political cost.               He demanded Bhagwan speak on the elections rigging of that year. But what, precisely, was Kissoon’s own record of clarity on the systematic subversion of democratic process that preceded, accompanied, and followed those elections? The record is incomplete. The silence, when it mattered, was mutual.

The substantive criticisms Kissoon raises — Bhagwan’s omissions on the WPA in government from 2015 to 2020, the absence of reckoning with what Clive Thomas, Rupert Roopnaraine, and others became — are not without merit as questions.

Any serious accountability journalism would press them. This publication has pressed them. But Kissoon does not press them as a journalist. He deploys them as instruments of personal settlement, selectively, against a man he once called his political comrade, at the close of that man’s ninety-first year.

There is a name for that practice. It is not criticism. It is score-settling on a deathbed timeline.

A man who was chemically attacked by agents of the PPP now performs their preferred verdict on Bhagwan’s legacy. The substance worked.

Kissoon writes — with a register of wounded intimacy — that Bhagwan signed his marriage certificate in 1979.

He describes Moses as a kind, gentle soul. He tells us he was deflated when the memoir was announced because he anticipated what it would contain. And then he delivers the most devastating phrase of all, one that reveals more about Kissoon than about Bhagwan “Go to hell  Moses.”
That is not the language of a man doing journalism. That is the language of a man who feels abandoned. And perhaps Bhagwan did abandon Kissoon — by refusing, in April 2020, to become a weapon in Kissoon’s preferred narrative. Perhaps that refusal was itself a kind of political judgment that Kissoon has never forgiven.

We do not adjudicate every interpretive dispute Kissoon raises about Bhagwan’s memoir. Reasonable readers will disagree on questions of omission, emphasis, and the obligations of memoir as a form. But we do adjudicate the following: no columnist who aligned himself — whether through silence, selective outrage, or direct editorial companionship — with those who brought miasmic violence against him, and who then deploys that borrowed credibility to diminish one of Guyana’s genuine nation-builders, is operating in good faith.

Moses Bhagwan’s contribution to this nation is not carried in a column. It is carried in the bodies of men and women who were organised, protected, and politically educated under conditions that would have broken Kissoon before he reached the first paragraph. Ancestors of the River is a document of historical memory. Enter The Political Kingdom is a testimony of civic courage. Together, they constitute a body of work that will outlast every column Kissoon has published, including this one.
We challenge Freddie Kissoon to produce his own comparable record of nation-building — not his columns, which are the record of his opinions, but his record of sacrifice, organisation, sustained civic construction, and documented historical contribution to the Guyanese people.

Let him lay that record beside Bhagwan’s two books, beside the WPA’s years of unarmed resistance against Burnhamite state terror, beside the quiet, dignified labour of a man who chose not to be a weapon for any faction.

When that accounting is made, the question of who has earned the authority to pronounce on Moses Bhagwan’s legacy will answer itself.

Available on Amazon: https://a.co/d/0dM2Bkcd
The 592 Guardian holds that legacy in the tradition we were founded to defend: evidence-led, prosecutorial, and unwilling to flatter power — including the power of the self-appointed.
— The Board of Editors, The 592 Guardian

ILLNESS AND DEATH,THEN MORE SICKNESS, DEATH-LIKE STATES

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM♦JUNE 2026                                                                                  ILLNESS AND DEATH, THEN MORE SICKNESS, DEATHLIKE STATE

I met Mr. Don Singh just once. Stopped and shared a few minutes in pleasant conversation. Whatever his politics, my impression was of a decent fellow. When the news of his sudden illness came, it was a surprise. Now that he has left these shores, may his soul rest in peace. To his biological family, my condolences on what has to be a hard loss. To his political family, regrets at losing a formidable worker. And, to my regret, whenever I make the mistake of thinking that things can’t get worse in this country, sink to more depraved depths, they do.

I struggle to understand how some can find joy in a man’s illness. A political man, a prince of a man, poor man, or a man who may have made himself, or be seen as, an enemy, it does not matter. There is ugly and there is ugly. To chortle privately on receiving the news of sickness is bad enough. To celebrate sickness in the vast public space of social media is degrading to an unfathomably dreadful level. It’s a sickness of a terrible kind by itself. Guyanese have really sunk to the bottom of a bottomless pit. When the savaging politics of this land of barbarians takes precedence over basic humanity, and day-to-day decency. I don’t care who is involved, so I say it now, and will say it forever. Whoever finds laughter, a time to engage in mockery, and an opportunity to kick a man, during a time of serious illness, that is one sick puppy. Sick in the head. Sick to the soul. And so sick and so callously indifferent that may have already died.

It is at times like these that I am glad to hold what is for me a prized outsider status.

Not trapped and warped by the prejudices that power local politics. Not condemned to the garbage dumpsite where ancient political grudges fester and flourish. There is so much hating, the call to forgiving may now be forever lost.

Guyanese are ghosts inside a skeleton that is overloaded and overflowing with a stream of poisons that find escape and the worst expressions when there is a human tragedy. Who is so base they see an enemy during those painful moments of loss and human catastrophe? I cast my eyes across to Venezuela and devastating earthquakes of this and that magnitude, and a full body shiver runs amok. Guyanese are so fortunate when the licks and kicks of providence were allocated. Perhaps that explains why the people of this country are so cursed. By the irresistible pull of their politics hurling them towards all that they have come to know: gutter reactions. Such was what stalked the news of Mr. Don Singh’s illness.

Now that he is gone to his creator, there was a moment for many of the social media warriors to regroup and recollect themselves. Having had a good laugh at sickness, the news of the man’s death was a line not to be crossed. Except that it was. The unbreachable breached. Treating self with profanity and vulgarity amid threnodies of grieving. Guyanese do wear their disgrace on their sleeves. All self-respect hollowed out and proudly displayed on the altar of political frenzies that burn at higher and higher pitches.

Seeing that sickness and death are causes for ostentatious displays of ignorance, it is no wonder that living has become such a corrosive burden in this divided, raucous, self-defeating society.

I behold Guyanese, who are committed to tearing apart and bringing down each other. It is all in the name of the wrenching and divisive politics that have haunted this land, in times of peace and relative quiet. Thus, I cringe in thinking of how citizens may be to fellow citizens in times that are hostile and more hateful. Often, I am glad that, though many a thought is shared in public spaces, there is still rebuffing getting any closer. The armor that protects. The safety net that upholds sanity.

May the soul of this brother, Don Singh, find eternal rest.

THE GUIANA SHIELD IS BEING REORGANIZED

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

 The 592 GUARDIAN♦EDITORIAL♦ENVIORMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Guiana Shield Is Being Reorganised — And Guyana Is Watching From the Sidelines    What is happening in Venezuela’s mining belt is not Venezuela’s problem alone– JUNE 2026

The arrest of Nicolás Maduro by American special forces in January 2026 was treated in Guyana largely as a geopolitical curiosity — the end of a neighbourhood nuisance, perhaps even a quiet relief given the years of Essequibo belligerence his government sponsored. That reading was dangerously shallow. What has unfolded since in Venezuela’s Bolívar state is not the tidying up of a failed state. It is the reorganisation of the Guiana Shield — the same ancient geological formation that underlies Guyana’s gold and uranium frontier — under American strategic and commercial direction. Guyana is not a spectator to this process. It is a participant whether it chooses to be or not.

 On June 8th, army helicopters swept into Las Claritas, Venezuela’s ground zero for illegal gold mining in Bolívar state. Thousands of freelance prospectors fled. Days later, the United States launched an air strike killing Héctor “Niño” Guerrero Flores, the boss of the Tren de Aragua crime group. President Trump announced the operation was “co-ordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela.” Within weeks, Western mining executives were on the ground at El Callao, one of Venezuela’s most famous gold complexes. In April, Venezuela’s National Assembly had already passed a mining-reform bill cutting royalties, prolonging concessions and allowing international arbitration of disputes. 

The message was unambiguous: the Orinoco Mining Arc, a Portugal-sized stretch of rainforest and mineral wealth that Chávez nationalised and Maduro surrendered to criminal syndicates, is now open for Western business under American military cover.

 This should command the full attention of every Guyanese citizen who has followed this news—outlet coverage of the GGMC’s nine-year audit backlog, the U92 Energy Corp. uranium play at Kurupung, the G2 Goldfields/GMIN merger and Guyana’s failure to enforce change-of-control provisions, and the gold laundering vectors through the Guiana Shield into Brazil and beyond. 

 What The Economist describes from the Venezuelan side of the Shield is the mirror image of what we have been documenting from the Guyanese side: the same unregulated extractive frontier, the same absent regulatory infrastructure, the same criminal networks, the same geological wealth being approached without the governance architecture to manage it responsibly.

 The Shield Does Not Recognise Our Border

 The Guiana Shield is one of the oldest geological formations on Earth, stretching across Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and northern Brazil. It holds some of the world’s most significant deposits of gold, diamonds, bauxite and — as the Kurupung case makes plain — uranium. The criminal networks that have exploited it do not organise themselves around the borders drawn by colonial cartographers. Tren de Aragua, whose leadership the Americans just eliminated in Las Claritas, has been documented operating across the Shield. The FARC dissidents and the National Liberation Army, whom The Economist identifies as still active in Venezuela’s mining belt despite the American air strikes, are not going to demobilise. They are, as one Venezuelan mining industry source told the magazine plainly, going to move. “If you clean up one area, they are going to move somewhere else. It’s that simple.”

 Where do they move? Deeper into national parks, says The Economist. Venezuela’s Imataca and Canaima national parks border Guyana. The Pakaraima mountains straddle the frontier. The same jungle that conceals illegal mining operations at Mazoa Hill and along the Cuyuni river system on the Guyanese side connects without interruption to the zone the Americans are now attempting to clear on the Venezuelan side. The displacement of criminal mining networks from Bolívar state is not a solution to the problem of unregulated extraction on the Guiana Shield. 

It is a pressure valve that will push those networks toward the path of least resistance. Guyana needs to be asking right now whether it is that path.

 The Regulatory Vacuum Is the Real Security Risk

 The government of Guyana will point to the Guyana Gold Board, the GGMC, the Environmental Protection Agency and the various bilateral security arrangements with the United States as evidence that the country is not defenceless. These institutions exist. The question this newspaper has been asking for months — and which events in Venezuela now make urgent — is whether they function adequately for the moment we are in.

The GGMC has not produced audited financial statements in nine years. That is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. In a context where criminal networks are being actively displaced from one part of the Guiana Shield toward another, it means that Guyana’s primary regulatory body for gold and mineral extraction cannot account for what has been extracted, by whom, under what conditions, and where it went. The Mazoa Hill controversy and the Cataratas vector we have previously documented are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a structural gap between the extractive activity occurring on 

 Guyana’s territory and the state’s capacity to govern it.

 The G2 Goldfields/GMIN merger is a related symptom. When the ownership of a major mining concession changes hands through a corporate restructuring and the state’s change-of-control provisions are not enforced, the message sent to the extractive industry — legitimate and otherwise — is that Guyana’s regulatory framework is a formality, not a constraint. That message travels. It is heard in Caracas, in São Paulo, in the offices of commodity traders in Geneva and Singapore who are now making decisions about the post-Maduro Guiana Shield.

And then there is uranium. The U92 Energy Corp. Kurupung project sits in a jurisdiction with

→no domestic regulatory framework for uranium extraction.

→no specialised inspectorate.

→no established environmental liability regime 

→no parliamentary oversight mechanism with the technical capacity to evaluate what is being proposed.

 We have made this argument before on purely governance grounds.                                                                                                    We make it again now on security grounds: a uranium frontier on the Pakaraima border, adjacent to a zone from which armed criminal networks are being displaced by American military operations, is not a situation that a functioning state should approach with a nine-year audit backlog and an unstaffed Data Protection Commission.

 Washington’s New Architecture and Guyana’s Position

 The broader regional picture demands clear-eyed assessment. The Economist documents what it calls the “Trumpification” of Latin America — seven consecutive right-wing presidential victories since January 2025, an ideological convergence around Washington’s priorities on crime, migration and extractive industry, and a network of direct American military co-operation from Ecuador to Venezuela. The PPP government has historically cultivated a careful non-alignment, maintaining relations with Washington, Beijing and Caracas simultaneously. That triangulation is now under structural pressure.

The US-Venezuela arrangement is revealing in its terms. Venezuela under Rodríguez is supplying mineral access, security co-operation and political compliance in exchange for American recognition, sanctions relief, oil export waivers and military protection. Maduro’s Essequibo aggression — the December 2023 referendum, the military mobilisation, the maps redrawn in Caracas — was a product of that previous regime’s political economy. The Rodríguez government, operating under American supervision, has different incentive structures. The Essequibo claim has not been formally withdrawn. But the regime that was prepared to mobilise it militarily has been replaced by one whose survival depends on American goodwill.

This creates a narrow diplomatic window that Guyana should be exploiting with urgency and precision.

 The International Court of Justice case proceeds on its own timeline. But the political conditions that made Venezuelan adventurism possible have shifted significantly. “A Guyanese government with the strategic literacy and institutional capacity to engage this moment could consolidate real security gains. A government that treats it as background noise while managing oil revenues and managing elections is leaving an opening”.

The question of how Georgetown engages Washington in this new regional architecture is not separable from the question of whether Guyana’s extractive governance is adequate to the moment. 

American capital is rushing into the Guiana Shield. American military presence is reorganizing its security environment. American strategic interest in the region’s mineral wealth — gold, uranium, rare earths — is not abstract. 

If Guyana cannot demonstrate that it governs its portion of the Shield with the transparency and accountability that Western investors and institutions nominally require, it will find itself not as a partner in this new architecture but as the next ungoverned frontier to be reorganised by someone else.

What Needs to Happen

This new outlet does not traffic in alarm for its own sake. We state what the evidence requires:                                                                                               
→The GGMC audit backlog must be cleared as a matter of national security, not administrative housekeeping. The government should be asked in Parliament, specifically and on the record, when audited financial statements for 2017 through 2025 will be tabled. No answer is itself an answer.

→The U92 Kurupung uranium project must be paused pending the establishment of a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. This is not anti-investment. It is the condition for investment that does not create liabilities the Guyanese state cannot manage.

The Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services, reduced from monthly to quarterly meetings in the same period that these extractive governance questions have intensified, must be restored to regular function and given the technical support to conduct meaningful oversight of the mining sector.

 The Guyana government must make a formal public assessment of the security implications of the displacement of criminal mining networks from Venezuela’s Bolívar state toward the Pakaraima border region. If that assessment has been made internally, it should be shared with Parliament and the public.

And the PPP government must decide, clearly and on the record, what Guyana’s strategic posture is in the new regional architecture that:                                                                            American policy is constructing. Non-alignment was a coherent position when the region was genuinely multipolar. It becomes incoherence when the Shield on which your economy depends is being reorganised under the military and commercial direction of one power, on your border, right now.

The Guiana Shield does not belong to Washington.

 It does not belong to Caracas. 

A significant portion of it belongs to the people of Guyana.

It is time to govern it like it does.

 The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet. We accept no government advertising and carry no political affiliations.

Beyond Polite Suggestions

/1 Comment/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN

EDITORIAL  |  JUNE, 2026

Beyond Polite Suggestions: Guyana Needs Open Data by Law, Not by Goodwill

A recent commentary on inter-agency coordination identifies the right problem — and then systematically avoids the solution. We will not be so cautious.

A letter published recently in Stabroek News by Emille Giddings offers a thoughtful — and carefully circumscribed — meditation on Guyana’s crisis of institutional information-sharing. The author frames his concern in the language of administrative philosophy: silos, coordination culture, the tension between information as a public good and information as a political instrument. He asks the right questions. He arrives at no demands. We understand why. We do not share his constraints.

Let us state plainly what the letter gestures toward but does not reach: Guyana has no enforceable legal framework requiring its public agencies to produce, validate, and share data with the public. None.

The coordination failures the author describes are not accidents of organisational culture. They are the predictable output of a system in which agencies are rewarded for secrecy and penalised for nothing when they withhold. Until we fix that structural reality, no amount of appeals to cooperation will change anything.

The Problem Is Not Culture. It Is Architecture.

Giddings writes that the failure to share data is “sometimes out of pride, sometimes rivalry, sometimes caution.” That observation is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The more precise explanation is that Guyana has never legislated open data as a civic right. There is no Freedom of Information Act with teeth. There is no statutory mandate for machine-readable datasets from public agencies on a regular publication schedule. There is no enforcement mechanism, no independent oversight body, no penalty structure for non-disclosure.

In the absence of those structures, the default condition is opacity, and opacity serves those in power. That is not an accident; it is a design. When ministers can choose which figures to release and when, when procurement data is not public by default, when audit findings take years to surface — that is not a coordination problem. That is a governance problem, and it will not be resolved by encouraging agencies to be more collegial with one another.

The author’s example of an energy planner needing data from housing, customs, transport and income agencies to forecast demand is entirely correct. What he stops short of saying is that in a properly governed democracy, most of that data would already be publicly available on a government data portal, downloadable, structured and regularly updated. The planner would not need to make requests across institutional boundaries. The data would be there, because the law would require it to be.

Open Data Is Not a Technical Project. It Is a Transparency Obligation.

The 592 Guardian has long argued for a national open data architecture — not because it will make planners more efficient, though it will — but because public data produced by public agencies using public money belongs to the public. Full stop. The government of Guyana spends billions of dollars every year. The Guyanese citizenry, the academic community, independent journalists, civil society organisations, and ordinary residents have an unconditional right to the data that describes how that money moves and what it produces.

What would this look like in practice? It means a statutory Open Data Act, with a clear schedule of datasets that every public agency must publish in machine-readable formats on a public-facing portal — procurement records, budget execution reports, environmental compliance filings, infrastructure project progress data, land titling, licensing approvals, revenue collection figures and more. It means regular, automated publication — not annual tabling in a Parliament that rarely sits. It means an independent regulator with the authority to compel disclosure and impose sanctions for non-compliance.

None of this is radical. It is standard democratic governance in 2026. What is radical — what should be treated as a scandal — is that Guyana is awash in oil revenues and still does not have a functioning open government data infrastructure.

The Data Protection Commission: An Irony Worth Naming

The letter’s author is himself the brother of Aneal Giddings, who is — or until recently was — the sole staff member of Guyana’s Data Protection Commission. We raise this not to impugn the letter writer, whose observations stand or fall on their merits, but because it illustrates precisely the institutional dysfunction his letter describes.

Guyana’s Data Protection Commission, established under legislation, has operated for its entire existence as a one-person office. One officer. One person charged with overseeing data protection across the entire public and private sectors of a country undergoing one of the most rapid economic transformations in the hemisphere. The Commission has not been resourced. It has not been empowered. It has been, in effect, a statutory obligation fulfilled on paper and ignored in practice.

Aneal Giddings is now, by all available evidence, no longer in Guyana. He appears to have emigrated — while simultaneously serving as the only staff member of a statutory body and as a witness in the elections fraud trial. The Commission’s mandate sits in legislative limbo. No one has been appointed to replace him. No statement has been issued by the Minister responsible. Parliament has asked no questions. The press has largely moved on.

This is the ecosystem Emille Giddings is asking to coordinate more effectively. It is a reasonable ask. It is also, given the above, a somewhat optimistic one.

What Needs to Happen

The 592 Guardian calls for the following, specifically and without qualification:

→First, the immediate tabling of an Open Data Bill in the National Assembly, establishing a legal right of public access to government datasets, a mandatory publication schedule for covered agencies, and an independent enforcement mechanism with real powers of sanction.

→Second, the immediate reconstitution of the Data Protection Commission with adequate staffing, a published budget, and a board that includes civil society representation — not as a patronage exercise, but as a governance requirement.

→Third, the immediate launch of a public-facing national data portal, centrally maintained, with structured machine-readable datasets from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Guyana Revenue Authority, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board, and the major state-owned enterprises. This portal should be updated on a rolling basis, not annually.

→Fourth, a statutory requirement that all future contracts for infrastructure and extractive industry projects above a defined threshold include data transparency clauses — requiring contractors and the relevant agencies to report progress metrics and financial disbursements to the public portal on a quarterly basis.

None of these proposals require new technology. They require political will. They require a government that genuinely believes the public has a right to know what is being done in its name, with its resources, on its land.

The Silence That Costs Us

Giddings ends his letter with a series of rhetorical questions — do we want planning systems that depend on improvisation, do we believe Guyana can build institutions that think across boundaries, do enough of us believe in a Guyana that can become more coherent and serious? These are good questions. They deserve an honest answer.

The answer is that we will not get there through appeals to better coordination culture. We will get there when the law requires transparency, when institutions are penalised for secrecy, when citizens can access the data that is rightfully theirs without submitting requests that go unanswered, without relying on leaks, without needing to know someone who knows someone inside the agency.

The author was careful. He had reasons to be. We have no such reasons.

Guyana’s information architecture is broken. It is broken by design and sustained by convenience. The answer is not better collegial habits among agencies. The answer is open data by law, transparently administered, publicly accessible, and enforceable. Anything less is a conversation about the symptoms while the disease continues to spread.

— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board

THE PHANTOM BOND

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

THE PHANTOM BOND:                 How Guyana’s President Announced a Financial Product That Does Not Legally Exist

The 592 Guardian | Accountability Desk

On May 26, 2026 — Guyana’s Diamond Jubilee — President Irfaan Ali stood before a joint press conference at the National Stadium in Providence and made a declaration that would have moved financial regulators in any serious jurisdiction to immediate attention.

“I want to announce that the Government of Guyana will launch a special bond, a diaspora bond, to raise funds from the diaspora for investment in public infrastructure projects in Guyana,” the President said. “Within one week, we’ll be launching the diaspora bond.”

 That was twenty-seven days ago.

The bond has not launched. No prospectus has been filed. No issuing authority has been named. No interest rate, tenor, denomination, subscription cap or targeted project has been disclosed to the public.

The Guyana Securities Council — the statutory body mandated under the Securities Industry Act 1998 to register securities, require prospectuses, and protect investors — has not announced any registration process for this instrument. The Bank of Guyana has not issued a corresponding regulatory notice. The Ministry of Finance has not tabled enabling legislation, published a bond framework, or identified the legal vehicle through which this debt would be contracted.

What exists, after nearly a month, is a presidential declaration made before a crowd on a national holiday. Nothing more

 This is not a minor administrative lag. It is a structural problem with serious legal and investor-protection dimensions that deserves examination on its own terms — before a single diaspora dollar is solicited.

What the Law Requires

The Guyana Securities Council is a statutory body created by the Securities Industry Act 1998, with a principal mandate to register, authorize and regulate issuers of securities, and to protect the integrity of the securities market.  The Act explicitly requires a prospectus for any offer to sell a security to the public, and mandates the contents of that prospectus, the delivery requirements, and supplementary disclosure obligations.

A government diaspora bond — an instrument designed to solicit investment from identifiable members of the public in exchange for a fixed return — is a security within the meaning of that Act. It is debt.

Under Guyana’s legal framework, where beneficial ownership of securities exceeds fifty persons, the issuer is classified as a public company and falls squarely within the purview of the Guyana Securities Council and the reporting obligations of the Securities Industry Act. A diaspora bond targeting thousands of overseas Guyanese would vastly exceed that threshold on day one.

No prospectus has been filed. No issuer has registered. The legal architecture for this product, as publicly announced, does not currently exist.

The Public Debt Management Gap

The problem extends beyond securities regulation. Guyana’s own Public Debt Annual Report of 2020 acknowledged that a comprehensive Public Debt Management Bill was earmarked for enactment by 2022— legislation that would, in the government’s own framing, “bolster transparency, accountability and sustainability” in how debt is issued and administered. Six years later, that Bill remains unenacted.

There is no consolidated statutory framework governing how this bond would be structured, who bears fiduciary responsibility for its proceeds, how those proceeds would be ring-fenced from general consolidated fund expenditure, or what remedies investors would hold if projects were cancelled or funds redirected.

The president announced a financial product into a legal vacuum that his own government’s debt management agenda had already identified as needing to be filled — and failed to fill.

A Pattern Worth Naming

This is not Guyana’s first experience with bond arrangements that lacked transparent architecture at the point of announcement. The Peeping Tom column in Kaieteur News recalled this week the episode of a prior bond issuance in which approximately $1 billion in bonds at a reported 20 percent interest rate was reportedly acquired entirely by a single corporate entity, generating some $400 million in returns over two years. Whether that account is precisely accurate in every detail is less important than the structural lesson it illustrates: when bond issuances are designed without mandatory prospectus requirements, public subscription caps, or independent oversight at the point of launch, they tend to resolve in favor of those with prior access to decision-makers.

The absence of disclosed details at announcement is not neutral. Although the government has not yet disclosed details regarding the size of the bond, expected returns, eligibility requirements or targeted projects,  the President nonetheless extended a public invitation to invest. That sequencing — invitation before framework — is the hallmark of pre-marketing, not regulated public offering.

The Structural Question No One Has Asked

A Diaspora Bond offering fixed rates of return is described as being designed to raise investment capital for large-scale infrastructure projects — but Guyana is not a country without capital for infrastructure. Finance Minister Ashni Singh told the Local Content Summit that Guyana currently produces over 900,000 barrels of oil per day across major offshore developments, with the upcoming Uaru project expected to push production beyond one million barrels. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Natural Resource Fund withdrawals are already financing roads, hospitals, housing and energy infrastructure through the annual budget. The government is not capital-constrained in any conventional sense.

If there is a financing rationale — a cash-flow gap, an acceleration of expenditure beyond NRF withdrawal limits under the amended Act, a desire to create a distinct financing pool for specific projects — that rationale should be stated in public, in writing, before any member of the diaspora is asked to commit their savings.

What Must Be Answered

The 592 Guardian puts the following questions on record to the Minister of Finance and the Office of the President:
→Under which legal instrument does the government propose to issue this bond — and has it been tabled before, or authorized by, the National Assembly?

→Has a prospectus or information memorandum been filed with the Guyana Securities Council, and if not, on what statutory basis is a public securities offering exempt from that requirement?

→What is the proposed interest rate, tenor, denomination and individual subscription cap for this instrument?

→Which specific infrastructure projects will the proceeds finance, and what ring-fencing mechanism will ensure proceeds are not redirected to general consolidated fund expenditure?

→What independent trustee or bondholder representative structure will be established to protect investor rights?

→Will resident Guyanese have equal, concurrent access to this instrument — or will the diaspora tranche be closed before domestic subscription opens?

  The Flag Stays Up

President Ali announced a bond “within one week” on Guyana’s independence anniversary. Nearly four weeks later, there is no bond, no framework and no legislative authority in the public domain. What there is, however, is an open solicitation — the President’s own words extended to the diaspora on a national stage, replayed in international Caribbean media — with no corresponding investor protection structure.

That is not a delay. That is an announcement in search of architecture.

 

And in a petrostate with Guyana’s procurement history and capital concentration patterns, the absence of that architecture at the point of public announcement is precisely the kind of red flag that accountability journalism exists to name.

This flag is flying. It will remain flying until the framework is public, the prospectus is filed, and the questions above are answered on the record.

The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet covering Guyanese governance, extractive industry and civil rights. Questions and documents may be directed to the editorial desk.

 

Seven Years and No Pipeline

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN — EDITORIAL June, 2026

            EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY ♦HUMAN CAPITAL ♦                                        GOVERNANCE FAILURE 

Seven Years and No Pipeline

ExxonMobil is commissioning a study to 3nd out who will run Guyana’s oil economy. A university handed Government a blueprint years ago. Someone, in a ministry, in a boardroom, in a Cabinet, chose to do nothing. We want to know who. 

THE 592 GUARDIAN EDITORIAL BOARD ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM

 Seven years into active oil production — seven years of billion-dollar revenues, supplementary budgets, mega-projects, and presidential tours of international investor conferences — ExxonMobil has now announced that it must commission a study to determine what workforce Guyana’s petroleum economy requires. Read that sentence again slowly. A study. In 2026. After first oil in 2019. 

This is not a planning challenge. This is a governance autopsy. 

The University of Guyana’s Vice-Chancellor has confirmed publicly that a detailed blueprint — identifying precisely the skills, disciplines, and institutional capacity required to service a mature oil economy — was prepared and formally handed to the Government of Guyana. That document did not disappear into a vacuum. It was received. It was presumably read, filed, noted, and actioned — or rather, not actioned. It was, in the language of Caribbean governance, “taken under advisement” and then quietly buried under the weight of inertia and misplaced priority. 

The question before this editorial board is not whether a skills gap exists in Guyana’s petroleum sector. That is now confirmed beyond dispute by the operator of the Stabroek Block itself. The questions that demand answers are structural, specific, and urgent. 

THE          QUESTIONS         GOVERNMENT          MUST            ANSWER 

 →When was the University of Guyana’s workforce blueprint received by the 

→ Ministry of Education and/or the Ministry of Labor? Who signed for it? 

→Was the blueprint reviewed by Cabinet, the Department of Energy, or the Local Content Secretariat? If so, what was the formal response? 

→ What budget allocations — across the 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 national budgets — were made specifically for petroleum-sector workforce development and credentialing? 

→ How much of the Natural Resource Fund has been earmarked for human capital development in the extractive sector, and what has been disbursed? 

→ What is the scope, cost, and timeline of ExxonMobil’s announced workforce study — and is that study being conducted with or without Government co financing? 

→Why is the national operator of the sector’s largest producing block performing a function that should have been executed by the State? 

    

The World Already Knows What Guyana Refuses to Do 

The World Bank Group — whose International Finance Corporation partners with governments and industry globally — published guidance this month making a point so elemental it should embarrass every minister who has cycled through the relevant portfolios since 2016: skills systems fail when industry is not a co-architect. Curriculum must be dynamic.

Partnerships between post-secondary institutions and extractive operators must be structured, funded, and time-bound. In Argentina, a university-company partnership model in the mining sector — supported by development finance — is projected to generate more than 10,000 direct jobs and 50,000 indirect ones by 2033.

The architecture was in place before the revenue arrived. Guyana inverted that sequence entirely. The revenue arrived. The institutional architecture did not follow. The University of Guyana built the blueprint anyway — and was met with the silence that passes for governance in this republic. 

 “The skills gap is acute and growing — but so is the evidence that when industry leads the way in designing skills curricula, it can help close this gap.” WORLD BANK GROUP — GLOBAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE, MADRID, JUNE 2026 

The irony is almost surgical. The very development institution that finances Guyana’s budget support and structural adjustment conversations is publishing frameworks about industry-government co-design in skills development — while Guyana’s government, flush with oil revenue, ceded that function entirely to the operator and leI a university’s work product gathering dust.

Local Content as Political Theatre 

The Local Content Act of 2021 was presented by the PPP/C administration as the legislative cornerstone of Guyanese participation in the oil economy. It mandated thresholds. It created a Secretariat. It generated public relations. What it has manifestly failed to do is generate a credentialed, competitive Guyanese workforce capable of Jlling the technical roles the sector demands. 

Local content without local competence is a political performance. You cannot legislate your way to a petroleum engineer if you have not funded the program that produces one. You cannot enforce supplier thresholds on Guyanese firms that do not exist because you never trained the people who would have founded them. The Local Content Act, separated from a structured national workforce development programme, is a compliance document without a delivery mechanism — a statute in search of a sector that was never built. 

This is the Government’s core failure: the conflation of legislation with governance. Passing a law is not the same as building a system. Announcing a Secretariat is not the same as training a generation. Holding a ribbon cutting at a new UG faculty building is not the same as ensuring its graduates meet the certification standards that Exxon, Hess, and CNOOC require at the wellhead. 

 The Cost Is No Longer Theoretical 

Every year that Guyana’s oil sector operates without a domestically trained technical workforce is a year in which the economic rents of extraction flow

disproportionately outward. Foreign technicians, expatriate specialists, and imported expertise consume wages, housing allowances, and per diems that should be anchoring a Guyanese middle class. The macroeconomic argument for workforce localization is not ideological — it is arithmetic. It is the differnce between an enclave economy and a developmental one. 

The Government has had seven years of production revenue, a university blueprint, a Local Content Act, a Natural Resource Fund, a Department of Energy, and a Ministry of Labor. ExxonMobil is now doing the study. That inversion of institutional responsibility tells you everything about where accountability for this failure sits. 

WHAT         ACCOUNTABILITY         REQUIRES 

→The Ministry of Education must publicly release the UG workforce blueprint and document its official handling since receipt. 

→The Local Content Secretariat must publish a disaggregated accounting of Guyanese versus expatriate employment in the Stabroek Block, by skill category and salary band. 

→The Natural Resource Fund oversight committee must disclose what, if any, allocations have been made for tertiary and vocational skills development in the petroleum sector. 

→Parliament’s sector committee must summon the responsible ministers — past and present — to account for the seven-year gap between blueprint and action. 

→ExxonMobil must make its forthcoming workforce study a public document, subject to independent civil society review, not a proprietary operator filing. 

 A Final Observation 

There is something revealing in the fact that it took the operator — not the State — to publicly identify that a workforce study was needed.

In a properly functioning developmental state, that announcement would have come from a ministry, backed by a budget line and a parliamentary timeline. Instead, it came from a Texas-headquartered multinational as a practical operational necessity. The government’s silence before that announcement, and its likely silence aIer it, is the story. 

Someone received the University of Guyana’s blueprint. Someone decided it was not urgent. Someone sat in a Cabinet room, year after year, and approved budgets without a serious workforce development line for the sector generating the nation’s historic windfall.

We do not yet know those names. But the record exists. The documents exist. The budget lines — and the blank spaces where budget lines should have been — exist. 

This editorial board will be pursuing them. 

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GEORGETOWN, GUYANA

HELD TO RANSOM

/0 Comments/in , /by

Held to Ransom: How Political Failure Handed Guyana’s Energy Security to Private Power

When Leadership Fails: How Guyana Lost Control of Its Energy Sector

Guyana now finds itself in the untenable position of being effectively held hostage by two corporate entities, forced to choose between paying millions more each day or subjecting the nation to blackouts. This is not an accident. It is not a misfortune. It is the direct and foreseeable result of political decisions made at the highest levels of government.

Responsibility for this crisis rests squarely with the current administration and, in particular, with those entrusted with oversight of the energy sector and the execution of the Gas-to-Energy project. The President, who has taken personal ownership of this initiative, and the Minister responsible for energy and public utilities cannot now retreat into silence while the consequences unfold.

The Wales Gas-to-Energy project was presented to the nation as a transformational undertaking—one that would deliver reliable, affordable power and reduce dependence on costly stopgap measures. Instead, it has been plagued by delays, escalating costs, and a troubling lack of transparency. Years after its promised timelines, the project remains incomplete, with no credible, fixed delivery date.

This failure is not merely technical. It is managerial and political.

Critical national infrastructure was placed under the supervision of individuals whose primary qualification appears to have been political proximity rather than proven expertise in energy planning, project execution, or contract management. Competence was subordinated to loyalty. Oversight was weakened. And predictable risks were ignored.

The result is what Guyana is now experiencing: a government negotiating under duress, stripped of leverage, and exposed to demands it cannot reasonably refuse. When a country cannot allow a supplier to walk away without triggering a national crisis, it has already surrendered its bargaining power.

Karpowership’s demand for increased payments is therefore not the root problem—it is the symptom. The real issue is that the Government of Guyana created the conditions under which such a demand could be made with confidence.

The financial implications are severe. Millions of US dollars in additional annual costs for a single power vessel. Billions of Guyana dollars diverted from the treasury. And all of this occurring in a country now earning unprecedented revenues from its oil sector.

This is not development. It is waste.

It is also, unmistakably, a misuse of public funds. Taxpayer resources are being deployed not to expand capacity or improve efficiency, but to compensate for delays, miscalculations, and poor governance. Citizens are effectively paying a premium for the government’s failure to deliver on its own promises.

Equally concerning is the continued lack of transparency. Key officials, including the President and the responsible minister, have offered no clear public accounting of the situation. No detailed explanation of the contractual breakdown. No roadmap for resolution. In any functioning democracy, such silence in the face of a national vulnerability would be unacceptable.

This is not simply about one contract or one project. It is about a pattern of governance in which political control overrides institutional strength, and where accountability is treated as optional rather than essential.

Guyana’s growing oil wealth was meant to insulate the nation from precisely this kind of vulnerability. Instead, it has coincided with a governance approach that has weakened planning, diluted expertise, and concentrated decision-making without adequate scrutiny.

The country is now paying the price.

If there is to be any meaningful course correction, it must begin with acknowledgment. Not deflection, not silence, but clear acceptance of responsibility at the highest levels. It must be followed by transparency, professionalization of key sectors, and a firm commitment to ensuring that national projects are managed by those with the competence to deliver.

Anything less will guarantee that this episode is not the last of its kind.

Guyana cannot afford to be a nation rich in resources but poor in governance.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 ,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—