Thank you for visiting this blog. Register or Login now to contribute.
Letter re Kaieteur News
Dear Editor,
In my Stabroek News column # 177 published yesterday reflecting on the journey of writing on Guyana’s oil and gas sector, I acknowledged several individuals and institutions that helped sustain the national conversation on petroleum governance. I regret, however, that I failed to acknowledge a media house that played an important role in bringing many of those issues to a wider audience.
Over the years Kaieteur News, under the leadership of its publisher Mr. Glenn Lall, frequently drew on several of my oil and gas columns as the basis for investigative reports and news stories. In doing so, the newspaper helped extend the reach of those analyses and placed matters relating to petroleum contracts, fiscal arrangements and transparency before a broader section of the Guyanese public.
Reporters such as Ms. Kiana Wilburg, Davina Bagot and their colleagues deserve particular recognition for the diligence with which they pursued those stories. I therefore owe and extend to them a personal apology.
With the closure of Stabroek News, the space for independent scrutiny of public policy inevitably narrows. The responsibility for informed and fearless journalism therefore becomes even more important. It is my sincere hope that media institutions, especially Kaieteur News, will continue to carry forward the task of informing the public and asking the difficult questions that democratic accountability requires.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
The Closing Ledger
Business and Economic Commentary
This column also brings to mind an earlier series, Business Page, which began in the early years of Sunday Stabroek under the editorship of David de Caires and Anna Benjamin. That column was interrupted after a disagreement over a piece on Caribbean Containers Inc. which prompted a defamation threat by its CEO, Ron Webster. Sunday Stabroek published an apology over my objections, which I felt might weaken my position should the matter reach the courts. I stood my ground and defended the action. No case ultimately succeeded, and the column eventually resumed.
The decision to bring Sunday Stabroek – a sibling of Stabroek News – to its final edition marks more than the end of a newspaper. It closes a chapter that began in 1986, when Guyana’s economic circumstances were vastly different from today. The economy was small and constrained, public finances were tight, shortages were common, and the state’s capacity to finance development was limited. Few would have imagined that four decades later the country’s economic output would be measured in the trillions of dollars.
Today the economy is estimated at roughly $1.5 trillion, a transformation – driven largely by offshore petroleum discoveries just over a decade ago – that reshaped both expectations and fiscal capacity. In a remarkably short period, the country has moved from harsh scarcity to the paradox of abundance.
Yet economic expansion does not automatically resolve the deeper questions of governance and accountability. Indeed, it often magnifies them. A striking illustration of this transformation lies in the public accounts themselves. The fiscal deficit projected for 2026 is larger than the entire national budget of 1986. That single comparison captures both the extraordinary growth of the economy and the expanding scale of the state’s financial commitments.
An unusual institutional development deserves notice. For the first time in Guyana’s post-independence history, responsibility for the nation’s finances has not been assigned to a separate Minister of Finance. However long-titled Dr. Ashni Singh’s designation might be, the portfolio remains with President Irfaan Ali, departing from long-standing administrative practice. The reasons were never clearly explained. At a time when public finances have expanded dramatically, concentrating fiscal authority in the executive inevitably raises questions about motive, institutional balance and oversight.
There is also a paradox that deserves reflection. The current administration came to office with what many regarded as one of the most academically accomplished economic leadership teams in the country’s history. Yet outcomes in several areas raise uncomfortable questions. Years after the completion of field work, the report on the 2022 national census is still outstanding. Long-standing structural challenges at the National Insurance Scheme appear to have deepened rather than eased. And in an economy experiencing unprecedented inflows of foreign earnings, complaints about the scarcity of foreign exchange continue to surface within the business community.
The contrast between the promise of technical expertise of Dr. Singh and the persistence of these difficulties, illustrates how economic management ultimately depends not only on credentials, but on the effectiveness of individuals, institutions and policy execution. Indeed, growth has also been accompanied by persistent concerns about the management of public resources. Over the years, observers have increasingly remarked on the pervasiveness with which corruption is alleged to have entered public life. What once appeared episodic now seems, to many citizens, more open and institutionalised.
Large and ambitious undertakings – among them the proposed development of Silica City and the gas-to-shore project – have been promoted as symbols of national ambition. Yet, their costs, their financing arrangements, their priorities, and their long-term economic justification are mired in obfuscation and opacity.
Fiscal policy itself has also evolved in notable ways over the past four decades. Personal income rates were dizzyingly high, reaching a combined marginal rate of 75%. Estate duty, sometimes referred to as Death Duties, formed part of the fiscal regime that had existed since income tax was first introduced in 1929. Except in the CIA inspired action against the 1962 tax measures introduced by the Cheddi Jagan premiership, most Guyanese grudgingly met their obligations.
Over the life of Sunday Stabroek, tax rates have tumbled, while some taxes have disappeared altogether. Capital taxes on death have vanished from the system, and more recently the wealth-related levy known as property tax for individuals, has effectively faded from relevance. At the same time, businesses and their leaders routinely advocate additional relief and concessions as “measures to stimulate investment and growth”.
Such developments raise legitimate questions about balance within the fiscal framework. A state with expanding expenditure obligations must also maintain a revenue system that is transparent, equitable, and sustainable. Otherwise, the burden of financing development shifts in ways that may prove difficult to sustain over time.
One area that has received remarkably little attention is the steady decline of the labour movement. Institutions such as the Trades Union Congress and the Guyana Public Service Union appear weaker and less effective than at any time since the colonial era. Leadership has too often placed politics ahead of membership, and the purchasing power of the minimum wage seems to bear a striking relationship to the quality of labour leadership.
These are precisely the types of issues that newspapers have traditionally examined. One of the enduring contributions of Stabroek News was its willingness to provide space for economic commentary that explored not only the promise of growth but also the institutional challenges that accompany it.
No reflection on this moment would be complete without acknowledging the role that Stabroek News played in holding the nation to account. That task was not always welcomed. At various moments, the newspaper faced pressures – political, commercial and financial – that might well have weakened a less determined institution. Yet it persisted in asking questions, examining public decisions and providing a forum where issues of national importance could be debated openly.
Particular recognition must go to the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief, Anand Persaud, whose stewardship in recent years has required an extraordinary range of responsibilities. In many respects he has carried forward the demanding editorial tradition established by the newspaper’s founder, David de Caires, while simultaneously assuming functions that were once shared among several senior figures in the newsroom. That continuity of purpose has been essential in preserving the paper’s distinctive voice.
Equally deserving of recognition are the many individuals whose work rarely appeared in print, but whose dedication ensured that the newspaper reached its readers day after day. The production staff who kept the presses running through long nights, particularly after the paper moved to a seven-day schedule, demonstrated a level of commitment and resourcefulness that is seldom fully appreciated outside the walls of a newsroom.
Since the announcement of the newspaper’s closure, tributes from readers, writers and columnists have poured in – many eloquent, some deeply emotional, others personal, and a few that brought tears to the eyes. Together they testify to the quiet but profound place the newspaper has occupied in the intellectual and civic life of the country. Those tributes speak for themselves, and one can only join in endorsing the appreciation they express for the many people who sustained this institution over the years.
As the final issue rolls off the expertly maintained press, the national ledger which Stabroek News helped to maintain remains far from settled. The economic story of Guyana continues to unfold, shaped by decisions about governance, fiscal discipline and public accountability. One ledger may close with this edition.
The larger ledger, the one that records how Guyana manages its wealth, builds its institutions and governs itself, remains very much open.
The Exxon Audit Dispute: Two Fundamental Errors
Every man, woman and child must become oil-minded
Column # 178
Column Title: The Exxon Audit Dispute: Two Fundamental Errors
One of the last substantive reports carried by Stabroek News before the company entered liquidation dealt with the continuing dispute between the Government of Guyana and ExxonMobil over the appointment of a Sole Expert to determine the US$214 million in costs questioned in the IHS Markit audit. Normally, this is precisely the type of issue I would address in my regular column in that newspaper. Two fundamental issues arise from the report: how disputed audit issues are to be resolved in the absence of agreement, and where responsibility lies for the audit provided for in the Agreement.
With Stabroek News no longer available, I will address these and future matters in this personal blog, available for free use by any person with due attribution. For purposes of continuity, I will treat this as column 178.
Resolving audit issues
The Agreement itself sets out a clear process for dealing with disputes arising from the audit allowed under the 2016 Agreement. The audit is conducted on behalf of the Government under the authority of the Minister responsible for petroleum. Once the audit is completed, the Minister communicates its findings to the Contractor, identifying those costs that are questioned or disallowed and inviting a response within the prescribed time frame. During that period the parties exchange correspondence and attempt to reconcile any differences. Only if those efforts fail does the dispute move to the next stage.
That stage is the appointment of a Sole Expert.
The report suggests that ExxonMobil is insisting on the appointment of a particular expert. The Agreement simply does not allow this. The Sole Expert must be appointed by agreement between the parties, and if the parties cannot agree within the specified period after notice proposing the appointment, the appointment is to be made by the International Chamber of Commerce in accordance with its Rules for the Appointment of Experts and Neutrals.
In other words, neither party has the right to impose its own nominee. The requirement that the expert be independent and impartial makes it all the more troubling if the individual proposed by one side has previously carried out assignments for that same party.
The second error is the Government’s apparent decision to place responsibility for the audit in the hands of the Guyana Revenue Authority. That approach conflates two entirely different legal regimes.
The GRA is by statute required to administer the tax laws, including carrying out a tax audit. The audit under the Agreement is not a tax audit. It is a contractual audit carried out under the Petroleum Agreement. Article 23 expressly gives the Minister the right to audit the accounting records of the Contractor relating to petroleum operations in accordance with the Accounting Procedure set out in the Agreement.
To place the GRA at the centre of the present dispute blurs a distinction that should be obvious. The audit under the Agreement is the responsibility of the Government acting through the Minister responsible for petroleum. It is that authority which must assert the Government’s position and defend its findings under the Agreement.
But the Government and President Ali seem afraid to speak to Exxon as a sovereign power. President Irfaan Ali recently hosted senior ExxonMobil executives at State House at public expense. President Ali must understand that the company is frustrating the audit process by attempting to dictate the choice of Sole Expert. He should have used the opportunity to state Government’s position plainly: that ExxonMobil must respect and conform with the terms of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement.
The two issues ultimately are ultimately one of institutional responsibility. The State signed the Petroleum Agreement. It the State, acting through the Minister responsible for petroleum, that must assert and defend its rights under that Agreement. Those responsibilities cannot be outsourced or quietly shifted to another agency simply because the Government is afraid to displease Exxon.
The Government must use the provisions of the Agreement without fear or favour. Anything less risks reinforcing the perception that the Ali Administration is too weak and scared to represent the national interest.
The Tragic Cases of Three Pensioners
There is something profoundly troubling – indeed heartbreaking – about watching the National Insurance Scheme report what appears to be a dramatic financial turnaround while, at the same time, the attitude of both the Government and the Scheme towards pensioners appears to be hardening.
For years the NIS was regarded as financially fragile. Successive actuarial reviews warned about deficits and long-term sustainability. The national conversation about the Scheme was dominated by concern about whether it could meet its obligations in the future.
Today that picture is beginning to change.
Employment has expanded, contributions have increased, and the structure of the economy itself has altered significantly. The emergence of the oil and gas sector has introduced into the system a group of relatively young, highly paid contributors, many of whom earn well above the insurable earnings ceiling. Many of these workers may spend only limited periods in insurable employment in Guyana before moving elsewhere in the international labour market. They are replaced by equally highly paid workers.
It is the kind of situation of which most fund managers can only dream. From the perspective of the Scheme’s finances, this is a financial windfall from above. Contributions increase while both short and long-term benefit obligations associated with many of those contributors will never materialise. The results are already visible. The Scheme has begun reporting improved financial outcomes, including a return to surpluses after years of concern about deficits. Losses of hundreds of millions are now converted into billions in annual surpluses.
Yet, as the financial fortunes of the Scheme improve, the treatment of pensioners appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Whether it is inertia or bad will actual and potential pensioners lose out. The Government adjusts the minimum pension only reluctantly and belatedly. The first full year of oil production saw the minimum pension increased from $32,100 to $35,000 per month. It remained there for four years after which it moved to $43,075 per month.
Meanwhile, cost of living moved up, and up and up.
The harshness directed at the thousands were tragically directed at those who sought to stand up for their rights. Here are three cases of which I am painfully aware.
The first concerns the carpenter whose employer deducted National Insurance contributions from his wages but failed to remit them fully to the Scheme. When he applied for his pension, the claim was refused. He successfully challenged the decision and took the matter to court, but his victory proved short lived. One might reasonably have expected the matter to end there. It was the only time ever that the NIS appealed such a decision. The word is that the Government compelled the NIS to appeal the case and to ask that the decision be stayed. No money for Borther Zainul. He is still waiting, even as his health deteriorates. The Government’s excuse: that allowing the claim might create a precedent and “open the floodgates.”
The second case reflects a different but equally painful reality. A pensioner who believed that she had satisfied the statutory requirement of 750 contributions was informed that she was short by four contributions.
Four contributions out of seven hundred and fifty.
After months of struggle, she eventually instructed that the case be withdrawn. In explaining her decision, she wrote that she was not withdrawing the claim because she believed she was wrong. She was doing so because the process had exhausted her. The delays, the resistance and the strain of the struggle had taken a serious toll on her health and peace of mind. At her stage of life, she simply no longer had the strength to continue fighting the system.
The third case may be the most tragic of all. An appeal concerning pension entitlement was filed in 2010. It was not heard until 2023 – Thirteen years later. The delay was not attributable to the claimant. When the Appeal Tribunal eventually ruled in his favour, one might have expected the long ordeal finally to end.
Instead, the implementation of the decision itself has been delayed. Today the claimant still waits for the benefits which the Tribunal determined he is entitled to receive.
In the meantime, he has been diagnosed with cancer. He is in his late eighties. Now he wonders if his surviving nephew who cares for him will be able to continue his claim!
These are not merely administrative cases. They are human stories. Three pensioners. One who won in court but still cannot obtain his pension. One who abandoned her claim because the struggle became unbearable. And the last one who waited thirteen years for justice and now waits again while battling a life-threatening illness.
These cases raise an uncomfortable truth. It is easier in this country to obtain a tax refund than to prevail against the callous National Insurance Scheme administration. But the Government is no better – and probably worse. My messages and email to President Ali are ignored. That it seems is because they care.
The National Insurance Scheme was created as a social insurance institution. Its purpose was to provide security in old age to workers who had contributed during their productive years. It was never intended to become an adversarial institution engaged in prolonged struggles with pensioners.
These examples are about cruelty and callousness. In a country newly enriched by oil, it is especially difficult to justify.
The passing of Stabroek News and the State’s Media
Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram
The impending closure of Stabroek News marks the end of one of the most significant institutions in Guyana’s modern media history. For nearly four decades the newspaper occupied a central place in the country’s public life and was widely recognised as one of the voices that helped sustain the struggle for democratic restoration, culminating in the return to free and fair elections in 1992.
This is not to suggest that Stabroek News represented the entirety of Guyana’s independent media. Other private newspapers, including Kaieteur News, as well as a growing number of online platforms, continue to operate and contribute to the country’s information landscape. But Stabroek News distinguished itself in several important respects. It developed a reputation for editorial independence, it functioned for many years as a kind of newspaper of record, and its letters page provided perhaps the most open and democratic public forum in Guyana. Over time that column became something of an informal national meeting place where academics, trade unionists, political figures, public servants, businesspeople and ordinary citizens debated, as equals, matters of public importance. In a society where structured spaces for civic and civil discussion are limited, that platform allowed citizens to speak directly to each other, and to those who govern.
Yet as the newspaper prepares to close its doors, the Government has uttered not a single word acknowledging its contribution. That silence is striking. Governments have often had difficult relationships with independent media. That is neither unusual nor necessarily unhealthy. But when a publication with such a long and consequential history disappears without even a word from those who exercise public authority, the silence itself becomes part of the story.
The conduct of the Government towards the Stabroek News over several years has been less than healthy for a fledgling democracy. This makes that silence all the more troubling. There is something distasteful when, following the closure announcement and the passage of a $1.5 trillion budget, the Government pays a mere $7.5 million towards a debt of approximately $90 million owed for advertising services going back a year. To compound matters, with more than a fortnight before closure, the Government stopped all advertising in the paper. That is beyond distasteful.
Yet, none of this should be misunderstood as suggesting that government advertising is the principal reason for the newspaper’s demise. Like newspapers around the world, Stabroek News has been confronting the structural challenges facing print media in the digital age. Readership patterns have changed dramatically, and fewer readers are willing to purchase printed editions – or even pay for electronic versions – of newspapers. Those economic realities have affected the entire industry, Stabroek News included.
The Government’s posture toward the newspaper nevertheless sits uneasily alongside the substantial public resources devoted to the State’s own media operations. The 2026 Estimates show that significant public funds continue to be directed to Government media entities. Under the Office of the Prime Minister – Programme “Government Information and Services”, the National Communications Network (NCN) is allocated $490.192 million for 2026. In addition, the Public Sector Investment Programme provides $75 million in capital funding for upgrading and expanding the NCN network. The Guyana National Newspapers Limited, publisher of the State-owned newspaper, also receives millions towards its capital expenditure, and the lion’s share of the government’s advertising budget, out of the Department of Public Information.
That entity will this year be receiving $480 million from the Treasury. By the most conservative measure, the Estimates show that well over one billion dollars in public funds is devoted annually to the Government’s information and media apparatus.
No one seriously suggests that governments do not have a legitimate role in communicating information to the public. The question is not whether government communication should exist. The issue is whether the allocation of public resources reflects a healthy balance between state communication and the survival of independent media.
There is another dimension that should not be ignored. The Auditor General has repeatedly reported that several state-owned enterprises are behind in the preparation, audit and tabling of their financial statements, limiting timely parliamentary scrutiny of entities supported by public funds. The accounts of the National Communications Network have historically reached the National Assembly years after the period to which they relate. The Department of Public Information, meanwhile, operates not as a separate corporation but as a department within the Office of the Prime Minister and therefore does not produce a distinct set of publicly tabled financial statements.
The contrast is therefore difficult to overlook. An independent newspaper that has played a significant role in the country’s democratic evolution now faces closure amid official silence, while substantial public resources continue to sustain the State’s own media institutions.
The disappearance of an independent newspaper also raises wider questions about the future of public discourse in Guyana. Democracies depend not only on elections but on the existence of institutions capable of facilitating informed debate and holding power to account. Newspapers historically performed that function not only through their reporting and editorials but also by providing a structured space in which citizens could exchange views on matters affecting the national interest. When such institutions disappear, the loss is not simply commercial. It alters the universe of public discussion. The challenge for any democratic society is to ensure that independent voices – like Stabroek News and Kaieteur News – remain part of that national conversation.
Interestingly, while the Government has remained silent, Guyanese society has not. In the days since the closure was announced, the letters pages have been filled with tributes from across the country. Writers from every segment of society – academics, trade unionists, political figures, professionals and ordinary citizens – have expressed their sense of loss, mourning not only the passing of a newspaper but the disappearance of a national institution.
One voice alone has been conspicuously absent.
The silence speaks for itself.