Thank you for visiting this blog. Register or Login now to contribute.
I have not received any payment from Mr. Mohamed, WIN or any sanctioned individual
Dear Editor,
A group photograph I appeared in two days ago, following a two-hour session with the new political party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) led by an OFAC sanctioned individual has triggered irrational reaction in certain quarters. The most irrational reaction published as a Breaking News alleges that I was paid $50 million “to prepare Budget Debate” which I thought had been done by the finance minister. That allegation is entirely false, reckless, and malicious.
I have not received, nor have I ever sought or accepted, any payment from Mr. Mohamed, from WIN, or from any sanctioned individual or person acting on behalf of such an individual. The post is plainly designed to create mischief by implying that I have breached Guyana’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws. That implication is wicked, malevolent and unfounded.
Guyana operates a system of parliamentary democracy in which citizens participate in national decision-making through their elected representatives in the National Assembly. Following the presentation of the 2026 Budget, I was approached by the Prime Ministerial candidate of WIN, which secured sixteen seats in the National Assembly, and asked whether I would meet with the Party’s elected members to offer general guidance on the Budget Debate and the Estimates process.
I agreed to do so entirely pro bono.
In addition to the publication of a flagship Focus on Budget published for the past 36 years, our accounting firm consistently provides technical guidance on budgetary, fiscal, and governance matters without charge to representatives of almost every major political party in Guyana, across administrations and across the political spectrum. This is neither novel nor partisan; it is part of my longstanding contribution to public discourse.
As a social and economic commentator, I have a vested interest in ensuring that the Budget Debate is informed, robust, and grounded in fact, regardless of which party occupies the Treasury benches. Parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure is central to democratic accountability, and engagement aimed at improving that scrutiny is both legitimate and necessary. I will always support and participate in making a modest contribution.
For the avoidance of doubt, I expressly invite my bankers and the Financial Intelligence Unit to review my accounts and deposits. I have nothing to hide.
Finally, the allegation collapses under its own absurdity. If I commanded a fee of $50 million for two hours of work, I would not need to be practising at the age of eighty.
I reserve all my legal rights in relation to this matter.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram
Force majeure is not a pause button (Part I)
Every man, woman and child must become oil-minded
Introduction
On 31 January 2026, Stabroek News carried a story that exposes how surreptitiously Exxon seeks to draw every drop of blood – sorry, oil – from Guyana. The report once again brings the issue of force majeure sharply into focus.
Force majeure is a contractual mechanism intended to grant additional time where performance has been genuinely and adversely affected by defined events beyond a contractor’s control. Speaking during ExxonMobil’s fourth-quarter earnings call, the company’s Chief Executive Officer, Darren Woods, stated that portions of the Stabroek Block remain under force majeure because of the Guyana–Venezuela border controversy, adding that one of its advantages is that it “pauses the clock” until the affected acreage becomes accessible.
Force majeure
In recasting force majeure not as an inability to perform, but as a benefit derived from delay, the formulation matters. But the statement is even more dangerous. First, it ignores Guyana’s permanent sovereignty over its own resources. Second, it treats force majeure not as a temporary legal cause for non-performance, but as a mechanism for preserving future access to Guyana’s petroleum acreage. The language assumes continuity of entitlement, subject only to timing. The sheer arrogance of Exxon and its disregard of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, of which force majeure is an integral part.
This concept which traces its origin to the law of contract, is narrow and exceptional, applying only where an event is beyond the reasonable control of one party to an agreement is unable to meet his performance obligations because of an event – an “act of God” – not reasonably foreseen at the time the agreement was signed which genuinely prevents the performance of contractual obligations. It is not designed to suspend contractual time while a contractor waits for more favourable political or legal conditions. That is part of the risk of contracting.
Force majeure is not self-proving and is certainly not unilateral. While one party may assert it, that party does not determine force majeure. Neither Exxon nor its Chief Executive Officer is the arbiter. The determination lies with the Government of Guyana, subject to the Agreement’s dispute-resolution and arbitration provisions.
Questions
Measured against that standard, Exxon’s own account raises questions. The controversy over Guyana’s western border is neither new nor unexpected. It predates the 2016 Agreement by two centuries and was widely known internationally long before Exxon applied for the blocks which it now claims are subject to force majeure. Those blocks formed part of the geopolitical risk environment against which the investment decision was made. Let us not forget that Texas bullied the GGMC team into signing the Agreement.
Foreseeability matters. A risk that is long-standing and openly acknowledged at the time of the contract cannot later be repackaged as force majeure simply because its resolution has been delayed or its consequences have become inconvenient. Remember too, that devious Exxon partly financed the ICJ case in the matter, in the form of a signing bonus which they and the Coalition sought to conceal.
Conclusion
Under Guyana’s constitutional and international law framework, including the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, access to petroleum acreage is not suspended property awaiting reactivation by any private contractor. It remains subject at all times to contractual compliance and lawful State decision-making. Force majeure does not confer a future option over national resources; it merely exempts performance where strict conditions are proved to have been met.
Having chosen sanctity of contract over sovereignty, the Government will have to explain why it would now not enforce the Agreement. That principle cannot now be applied selectively. Sanctity of contract means enforcing the Agreement as written, including the limits placed on when performance may be excused.
Whether those limits have been met in the present case is a question that cannot be answered by assertion or optimism of Exxon. It requires careful, independent scrutiny by the State.
Banks DIH, Shareholder Rights, and the Rule of Law
Business and Economic Commentary
The attempt by Banks DIH Holdings Inc to impose a 15 per cent cap on shareholder voting power through a by-law was never a technical governance adjustment. It was a fundamental challenge to settled principles of company law, shareholder rights, and the constitutional hierarchy established by the Canadian-modelled Guyana’s Companies Act. That hierarchy is the law (Act) – the Company’s Articles – and the Company’s By-laws (if any). Unlike the old Companies Act, by-laws are not compulsory.
From the outset, the proposal was misconceived. It attempted by by-law to do what the law permits by an amendment of the Articles by special resolution, and to limit voting rights attached to issued shares through vague notions of “acting in concert”.
The company answered a well-meaning call for restraint with costly newspaper advertisements that read more like a diatribe, personally attacking the writer rather than addressing the core legal defect – the impermissibility of altering entrenched shareholder rights by secondary by-laws. None of this cures illegality. Shareholder democracy is preserved by obedience to the law, not by rhetoric.
The High Court has now decisively vindicated that position. Justice Sandil Kissoon held the proposed by-law to be prima facie unlawful, ultra vires the Companies Act, and incapable of lawful ratification, reaffirming that articles confer rights while by-laws remain subordinate.
The ruling is significant beyond Banks DIH Holdings Inc. It reaffirms the rule set out in section 26 of the Companies Act that companies – private or public – with a single class of shares cannot abandon one share, one vote, and that directors cannot assume investigative or enforcement powers reserved by statute to regulators.
Equally important is what this episode reveals about institutional discipline. Guyana’s corporate environment is still maturing, and that process depends on respect for the rule of law, not improvisation. Novelty and good motives do not excuse illegality.
There remains a simple, lawful path for any company genuinely concerned about ownership: propose an amendment to the articles, comply strictly with the Companies Act, disclose fully to shareholders, and secure the requisite supermajority. And importantly, follow the law and provide for a buy-out of dissenting shareholders. Anything less undermines confidence – not only in the company, but in the market itself.
The High Court’s intervention was therefore not an intrusion into corporate affairs, but a necessary reaffirmation of legal boundaries. Companies are creatures of the Companies Act. They must follow the law and recognise the hierarchy of the company’s constituent documents.
Like DDL, the Banks group has a particular governance problem with the composition and posture of the board. It is a stacked board that appears to labour under the mistaken belief that its primary obligation is loyalty and fealty to the Company’s chairman rather than the high standard of fiduciary duties to the company. Directors are trustees of corporate power, required to exercise independent judgement in the best interests of the company.
Their duty is not even owed to the parent company as an abstract entity. Section 96 of the Companies Act is explicit: “In determining the best interests of the company, directors must have regard to the interests of the company’s employees in general as well as to the interests of the shareholders.” The statute does not permit the subordination of those interests to security of tenure, personal allegiance, historical sentiment, or internal power arrangements.
When boards forget this, governance fails. And when governance fails in a publicly traded company, confidence drains away, shareholders vote through the disposal of their shares, and share price falls.
Wasting money on full page ads might massage egos. They do nothing for the promotion of shareholder value.
Wholly inappropriate disclosure by Banks DIH Holdings Inc
Dear Editor,
I have seen the paid advertisement by Banks DIH Holdings Inc. responding to my letter appearing in the Stabroek News of 12 January 2026 and the Kaieteur News the following day.
My letter addressed strict issues of law and corporate governance. It did not name a single director or officer of the company or member of the group, nor did it make any reference to their personal or professional character. I therefore have no interest in responding to personal attacks: they trouble me not in the least bit.
What disappoints me is that a company which once enjoyed a stellar reputation for propriety and integrity has descended to the level of publicly disclosing matters relating to a shareholder’s private affairs. That is wholly inappropriate and, in my view, unworthy of a public company.
In doing so, the advertisement states that I “sold all my shares” in the company. That statement is false. I did not sell my shares. I transferred them by way of gift to members of my staff and family. I did so because, like the capital market generally, I have no confidence in the direction in which the company is heading.
That correction aside, I have nothing further to add in the public arena. The issues raised in my letter are questions of law. They will be resolved in the proper forum.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
Audited figures must be published on this $10b NIS injection
Dear Editor,
It is deeply disappointing that Dr. Ashni Singh, the de facto Minister of Finance, failed in his 2025 mid-year report to account for the much-publicised $10 billion “injection” into the National Insurance Scheme. Though repeatedly touted by the President and Dr. Singh, no report – let alone an audited statement – has been produced to show what was paid or how contributors’ rights were affected. This was all political theatre, not transparency, not governance.
As minister responsible for the NIS, Dr. Singh’s record is troubling. Annual NIS reports are years overdue, denying Parliament and the public meaningful oversight. For decades, actuarial recommendations to restore the Scheme’s viability have been ignored. Its survival has depended largely on fortuitous contributions from temporary oil and gas workers – a matter of chance, not competent management.
It also bears recalling that Dr. Singh presided over the Ministry of Finance when the Scheme suffered heavy investment losses following the collapse of Clico, in a sector over which he exercised oversight. That failure continues to haunt the NIS. And in fifteen years as minister responsible for the NIS, not a single amending law has been introduced to modernise this Burnham-era legislation.
Against this background, the one-off cash grant is misleading, coercive and unjust. No new funds are injected; the State merely reimburses payments made. Contributors are required to surrender legal claims arising from disputed contributions – many of which exist only because of chronic mismanagement and poor record-keeping. In effect, the Government has used a cheap avenue to settle its moral and legal obligations.
The Scheme, encouraged by the Government, intimidates claimants by way of appeals – as in the case of the carpenter, and another (an octogenarian) who must wait for his appeal to be heard by a vacant internal tribunal awaiting an appointment, yes by the Minister of Finance.
This week I learnt of another contribution saga, this time of a retired teacher who over a period of several years had her contributions adjusted from 621 to 674 and then to 721, still short of 750, the minimum to qualify for a pension. The NIS likes to placate such persons by assuring them that some persons are short by one contribution!
Elderly claimants, facing ill health and delay, are abandoning valuable legal rights for the one-off grant. This makes the NIS happy, no more hard work, thorough investigations and follow-up with employers, or having their inadequacies pronounced on by the courts in a public forum.
In practice, contributors are forced to trade pension rights worth millions for a one-off payment of $650,000, while bearing the near-impossible burden of proving decades-old employment and contributions.
This injustice is compounded by a Board shaped through ministerial appointments, leaving contributors without meaningful representation.
Until audited figures are published, contributors’ rights clarified, and genuine reform undertaken, the NIS will continue to operate behind a façade of action. Responsibility now rests squarely with Dr. Ashni Singh. Continued inaction is both glaring and inhumane.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram