World-Class Tomfoolery: Another Powership, Another Bill, Still No Accountability

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

  World-Class Tomfoolery: Another Powership, Another Bill, Still No Accountability

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Kaieteur News reports that Lindsayca has privately advised the government that it cannot deliver electricity from the Gas-to-Energy project by Christmas. The newspaper also reports negotiations for a larger Turkish power-ship, expected to replace the two vessels already serving Guyana, and a contractor request for an additional US$120 million to US$170 million. These are serious, source-based allegations, not yet established facts about an approved payment or a completed agreement. But they demand an immediate, documented response—not another performance at a microphone.

The central question is no longer whether the government can find another supplier willing to sell Guyana electricity.

It is whether anyone in this administration will be held responsible for the distance between what was promised, what was planned and what the public is now being asked to finance.

First It Was the Grid. Now It Is Another Ship.

Guyanese have good reason to remember the explanation they were given.

In a September 18 report, the Guyana Chronicle quoted Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation Deodat Indar saying: “The problem is the grid, the amount of power that goes through the transmission lines is starting to exceed the design capacity of those lines.” The same report said GPL attributed blackouts largely to an overloaded distribution network rather than a shortage of generation, while maintaining that overall generating capacity was available.

Now the public is reading about an urgent search for another floating power plant, against a background of inadequate reserves and generators requiring maintenance. Kaieteur News reports that President Ali acknowledged there was no spinning reserve left on the grid.

These explanations are not necessarily technically incompatible. Indeed, the September Chronicle report itself described both overloaded networks and insufficient flexibility to remove generating units for maintenance. The problem is the selective reassurance: telling people that generating capacity is available does not answer whether enough dependable capacity remains when equipment needs servicing or fails.

That distinction matters.

If Guyana has both a network bottleneck and a generation-reserve problem, the government owes the country one coherent account of both. It cannot foreground one weakness when defending its record, then invoke another when seeking money for the next emergency.

Nor does another ship answer the question raised by the minister’s own explanation: how will additional electricity reach consumers through infrastructure already described as overloaded?

The public deserves an integrated plan, not explanations delivered in instalments.

A Request Is Not an Entitlement

The additional-money issue cannot be dismissed as mere opposition speculation.

On September 18, the government’s own Department of Public Information reported President Ali acknowledging: “I know that there has been a request for additional resources.” He said the request had not been discussed. That official account also reiterated the commitment to first power by the end of December, with full 300-megawatt capacity expected in 2027.

The October 25 report now puts the alleged additional request at US$120 million to US$170 million and says the December delivery is in jeopardy. The amount and the claimed inability to deliver remain matters requiring confirmation from the government and Lindsayca.

But the principle should already be settled: a contractor’s request for more money is not a public obligation merely because it has been submitted.

Before any additional payment is approved, the government should disclose:

• What contractual provision supports the request?
• Which costs arise from changes instructed by the government, and which arise from the contractor’s own performance?
• What work has been independently certified?
• What remedies exist for missed milestones, and have they been exercised?
• What additional guarantees would protect Guyana if more money were advanced?

These are not hostile questions. They are the minimum questions a government should ask when spending money that belongs to other people.

A project cannot be treated as a national triumph when promises are announced and as an unavoidable technical difficulty when the bill increases.

An Ambassador Is Not a Performance Guarantee

Kaieteur News places the reported financial request alongside US Ambassador Nicole Theriot’s public defense of the contractor. That political backdrop deserves scrutiny, but it does not establish that the ambassador has compelled an additional payment or improperly extracted money from Guyana.

The stronger indictment is simpler: no ambassador’s endorsement can substitute for contractual performance.

Diplomatic confidence is not an engineering certificate. A public expression of support is not proof that a milestone has been achieved. The nationality of a contractor does not relieve Guyana’s government of its duty to test claims, enforce terms and protect the public purse.

If Washington wishes to express confidence in an American-linked project, that is its position to defend. President Ali’s responsibility is to defend Guyana’s interests.

Friendship must not become a reason to soften scrutiny. Nor should diplomatic prestige become protective wrapping around an invoice.

The Emergency Must Not Become the Business Model

There may be a legitimate operational case for additional temporary generation. Keeping homes, hospitals and businesses supplied with electricity matters more than preserving anyone’s political pride.

But necessity does not erase accountability.

According to Kaieteur News, the larger vessel would replace the existing two ships, and the proposed arrangement could involve a multi-year commitment. It should therefore not be casually presented as three ships operating together, nor should its total cost be guessed before the contract is disclosed.

What must be demanded is the complete financial picture:

• The contracted capacity and the electricity GPL must purchase.
• The duration of the agreement and any minimum-payment obligations.
• Responsibility for fuel and other operating costs.
• Any overlap with payments under the existing arrangements.
• Termination rights if Gas-to-Energy begins supplying power.
• The procurement process and the legal basis for selecting the supplier.

A lower advertised rate would not, by itself, answer whether the overall commitment represents value for money. The duration, purchase obligations and exit terms matter too.

The government should publish those terms before presenting another emergency arrangement as a negotiating masterstroke.

Otherwise, the country risks being asked to applaud the price of the rescue without being told the cost of needing rescue again.

Oil Wealth Is Not a Substitute for Competence

The public’s anger about the Natural Resource Fund is understandable. But the available report does not establish that a specific NRF withdrawal has financed this proposed vessel or any additional Lindsayca payment. That connection should not be asserted without the financial records.

The accountability question remains powerful without inventing a transaction: what is the full budgetary cost of these overlapping energy commitments, and where will the money come from?

Oil wealth should give Guyana greater room to plan. It should not give its government greater room to improvise.

Every additional dollar committed to rescuing an energy timetable is a dollar that must be justified against other public needs. The fact that the Treasury may be able to find the money does not establish that the expenditure was unavoidable, properly negotiated or fairly allocated between taxpayers and contractors.

A growing economy needs a power system planned for growth. The government cannot celebrate expansion as evidence of its foresight and then invoke that same expansion as though it were an unforeseeable event.

Put the Documents on the Table

President Ali, Minister Indar and GPL should now provide a single public accounting.

Has Lindsayca formally revised its December commitment? What is the independently verified completion schedule? What additional resources have been requested, on what grounds, and with what recommendation from the government’s technical and legal advisers?

Has another power-ship agreement been signed? What will it cost? When do the existing arrangements end? What happens financially if the Wales plant begins supplying electricity while the new agreement remains in force?

And who accepted responsibility for ensuring that generation, maintenance, transmission and distribution were ready together?

The answer cannot be that everyone was working hard. Effort is not the contractual deliverable. Speeches are not reserve capacity. Announcements do not keep a refrigerator running.

This is a demand for accountability, not an argument for leaving the country in darkness.

If another vessel is genuinely necessary, explain the necessity and disclose the terms. If the contractor has missed its obligations, identify the breach and enforce the contract. If government decisions contributed to the delay, acknowledge them instead of transferring every consequence to the public.

The Christmas lights may yet come on. That will not, by itself, mean the government has delivered good governance. It may mean only that Guyana has paid again to postpone the reckoning.