Guyana Is Bigger Than Any Leader’s Legal Troubles

 Guyana Is Bigger Than Any Leader’s Legal Troubles

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026

History, sovereignty and the difference between a public cause and a personal defense

Guyana’s history did not begin with today’s political arguments. Nor should its future be reduced to the legal troubles of any one politician.

We can appreciate an achievement without excusing an injustice. We can criticize a government without pretending that nothing worthwhile has ever been accomplished under its leadership. And we can defend an opposition politician’s legal rights without making his personal defense a national obligation.

History requires more than political loyalty

Too much political discussion begins with allegiance and works backwards towards an explanation. Our preferred leaders become incapable of wrongdoing; their opponents become incapable of contributing anything of value.

History demands more of us.

Walter Rodney’s A History of the Guyanese Working People, 1881–1905 directs attention towards the workers and communities whose experiences cannot be reduced to the biographies of presidents. Cheddi Jagan’s The West on Trial offers his account of the struggle against colonial power. These works approach Guyana’s history from different positions and should be read critically, not treated as instructions about whom to support today.

Read the arguments. Compare the evidence. Ask whose experiences are included and whose are missing. Above all, distinguish between what a leader promised, what that leader accomplished and the price others paid.

Reading what a leader said is one thing. Examining what that leader actually did is another.

Burnham: neither erasure nor absolution

Forbes Burnham’s legacy illustrates why that distinction matters.

His authoritarian rule must remain part of any honest assessment. It cannot be dismissed as an inconvenient detail or excused on the grounds that nation-building required unquestioning obedience. But neither should that record erase his government’s challenge to foreign corporate ownership of major parts of Guyana’s economy.

Between 1971 and 1976, Burnham’s government nationalized Canadian- and American-owned bauxite operations and major British-owned sugar interests. These were substantial transfers of productive assets into state ownership—not simply speeches about independence.

The underlying ambition deserves examination: political independence should include meaningful authority over the resources, industries and economic decisions shaping the nation’s future.

That is a relevant principle today.

We cannot know what agreement Burnham would have negotiated with ExxonMobil, whether he would have secured better terms or how successfully his government would have managed petroleum wealth. Claiming certainty would replace history with speculation.

What we can say is that his nationalization program provides a historical reference point for an enduring question: how should a small country exercise bargaining power when dealing with corporations possessing immense financial and technical resources?

Acknowledging that question does not require romanticizing his economic record. Nationalization was not an automatic guarantee of prosperity, effective management or public accountability. Contemporary diplomatic reporting recorded deteriorating foreign investment following the Alcan nationalization. Sovereignty must ultimately be judged not only by who holds an asset, but also by how responsibly it is managed and whom it benefits.

The lesson is neither “nationalize everything” nor “leave everything to foreign investors.” It is that Guyana must approach economic development with a clear understanding of its own interests—and institutions capable of defending them.

Sovereignty belongs in the Exxon debate

The 2016 Stabroek agreement provides for a 2 per cent royalty and an equal division of profit oil after cost recovery. Reporting on an IMF assessment described the agreement’s overall terms as generous to the investor. That is a legitimate foundation for public scrutiny of the bargain Guyana secured.

Citizens should be able to ask whether the country receives a fair return without being dismissed as hostile to investment. Equally, advocates of change must explain the legal, financial and practical routes through which better outcomes could be achieved.

A demand for fairer terms becomes stronger—not weaker—when it is supported by expertise, transparent calculations and realistic proposals.

The same public-interest standard should extend across the extractive industries. Oil, gold and bauxite should be examined through consistent questions: What does Guyana receive? What liabilities does it assume? How are environmental obligations enforced? What opportunities reach Guyanese workers and businesses? Who verifies the figures?

Burnham’s determination to assert national ownership can inform that discussion without becoming a prescription to reproduce every policy of his era. We should seek the confidence to defend national interests while insisting on the democratic scrutiny that his own rule lacked.

Economic grievances must stand on their own

Guyana’s oil-driven expansion has been extraordinary. But rapid national growth does not settle the question of how securely ordinary people live. The World Bank also identifies persistent poverty and social exclusion, particularly in hinterland regions and among Amerindian communities. Those concerns warrant serious attention, even though they do not, by themselves, establish that inequality has increased since oil production began.

People are entitled to judge development through their own circumstances: the affordability of necessities, access to services, opportunities for their children and confidence that public institutions will treat them fairly.

These concerns should not be trivialized. Neither should they become political camouflage.

A movement claiming to represent struggling citizens should identify the public remedies it seeks. Which policy should change? Which institution must answer? What measurable improvement would constitute success?

If the central demand instead becomes protection for a particular leader from legal scrutiny, citizens should question whether their grievances are being represented or appropriated.

The PPP government’s shortcomings, wherever established, deserve examination. They do not answer an unrelated allegation against an opposition politician. Equally, allegations against that politician do not relieve the government of its obligations.

One side’s failures do not cancel the other’s responsibilities.

Due process is not personal immunity

The legal distinctions surrounding Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed matter.

He was remanded on October 30 in a cybercrime case involving the alleged unauthorized acquisition or disclosure of surveillance footage. Separately, he and his father face proceedings concerning a United States extradition request. These matters should not be collapsed into a single political narrative.

Charges are not convictions. Mohamed is entitled to the presumption of innocence, legal representation and a fair hearing. His supporters are entitled to advocate for his rights and to protest peacefully.

But defending those principles is different from demanding an exemption from the law.

Neither popularity nor political office should decide a case. Neither should hostility from those in government. Allegations must be tested through evidence and lawful procedures, with courts able to exercise independent judgment.

The standard should remain the same when the accused is someone we oppose. Otherwise, we are defending allegiance, not justice.

Citizens are not expendable

Those considering participation in any demonstration should ask what they are being asked to support.

Is the objective a public remedy, a defense of legal principle or the protection of an individual? Have organizers stated clear demands? Have they committed unequivocally to peaceful conduct? Who will bear the consequences if the event turns violent?

These questions do not deny protesters agency. They respect it. Citizens deserve enough information to decide for themselves, rather than being treated as bodies needed to fill a photograph or furnish a display of loyalty.

Any verified call to burn, loot or attack businesses should be condemned, regardless of its political source. But allegations about paid instigators, overseas organizers or coordinated violence require evidence and proper investigation. They should not be converted into established facts through repetition.

Those opposing political manipulation must not practice a different version of it.

Read beyond the feed

Guyana needs a political culture capable of holding several truths at once.

Burnham’s assertion of economic sovereignty does not absolve authoritarianism. Genuine hardship does not establish the innocence of an accused politician. A government’s development programme does not place it above criticism. Foreign investment does not make contractual terms beyond examination.

Our history becomes useful when it sharpens these distinctions rather than furnishing slogans for another round of division.

Get beyond the Facebook feed. Read the history, examine the court record, compare the arguments and question the people asking for your loyalty.

The real measure of political commitment is not how fiercely we defend a leader. It is whether we defend principles when doing so becomes inconvenient for our own side.

Guyana must protect its sovereignty against external domination and its citizens against abuses of power at home. Its people deserve fair resource agreements, accountable government, credible opposition and independent courts.

None of those causes should be reduced to any one man’s legal troubles.