Posts

Posted on

An Eventful Life by Dr. Maurice Odle

A book review by Christopher Ram – Part 4

This is the fourth and final part of Maurice Odle’s autobiography narrated in a reflective writing style, in which personal experiences, political analysis, and broader reflections on global issues are interwoven to give a comprehensive view of his life’s work and the contexts in which it unfolded. At the national level, Odle discusses the persistent racial and ethnic divisions in Guyana’s politics and society; the factors that led to the coalition government’s loss in the 2020 election; and the challenges of governance in a deeply divided society. His proposed remedy is for more inclusive governance, which also addresses the economic disparities between different ethnic groups.

Regarding regional issues, Odle reflects on the Caribbean integration process, discussing both its achievements and shortcomings. With his several years within the CARICOM Secretariat, Odle is critical of the Caricom integration experience, citing as examples, the issues of production integration and the establishment of an oil refinery by Guyana rather than utilising the virtually idle refinery plant in Trinidad and Tobago. He is also extremely critical of CARICOM’s tepid approach to helping Haiti, a failing member state, comparing this neglect to the Region’s approach to Guyana during its economic decline during the 70s and 80s.

Noting the rise in violent crimes in the Region, Odle, ever the economist, draws attention to its detrimental effect on the viability of a vibrant social tourism industry and partly related to the drug trade and the easy access to guns from the USA. In that regard Odle suggested that the Caribbean needs to demand a USA contribution to a security fund.

On the international front, Odle provides a critical analysis of global economic governance and security developments. He traces the evolution of international relations from the Cold War era to the present, discussing the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the continued militaristic role of the United States. He critiques what he calls the “New Imperialism,” arguing that it operates through both hard and soft power, including military, economic, and informational means.

Odle’s reflections on global economic governance are particularly insightful. He critiques the imbalances in global rules, the skewed implementation of international agreements, and the limitations of promoting development through global conference declarations. His call for a more democratic and accountable system of global economic management resonates strongly in today’s interconnected world.

Odle also has his fulsome say on the very one-sided nature of the 2016 petroleum contract with Exxon, and the PPP/C’s reversal of “review and renegotiate” while in opposition, to sanctity of contract on gaining power. Odle attributes this to the PPP/C’s visceral fear of alienating America’s interest which he attributes to the US’s role in the PPP’s removal from government in 1953 and 1964. He suggests that the Americans were happy to see it lose office in 2015,  partly owing to corruption and criminalisation of the state. Odle sums up the PPP by saying that remaining in office is more important to the Party than the effective maximisation of benefits according to the people of Guyana.

At a personal level, Odle’s reflects on his personal life, expressing his regrets about not spending enough time with family, and his hopes for the future of Guyana and the Caribbean region. Odle has not been shy to discuss his private life and to the contrast between his three wives (bracket not all at the same time), the even-tempered Margaret Hutson, Brenda Do Harris, the political activist and his current wife Valerie who he describes as the consummate social animal.

An Eventful Life is not just a personal history; it constitutes a crucial historical document that provides invaluable insights into the economic and political dynamics of the Caribbean region and its place in the global economy. For policymakers, academics, and anyone interested in international development or Caribbean affairs, this book offers both historical context and forward-looking analysis from one of the region’s most experienced economic minds.

I will give the final say to two individuals who have known Odle for decades. The first, a literary giant, expressed the hope that what he describes as a compelling narrative should have wide appeal which deserves a very wide readership. The other, a fellow academic described the book as  an “insightful and entertaining memoir.” The latter applauds Odle’s courage and honesty in talking about your family life and other close relationships, and describes Odle’s “reflections, especially at the international level’ as compulsory reading for politicians, scholars and commentators. 

In closing, let me say a word for the London publishers Hansib of Guianese heritage. The quality of the production is excellent and even the list price compares favourably with low-cost publishing countries like China and India. An Eventful Life will be launched at Moray House next Wednesday (Sept. 11) at 5 PM where you will be able to obtain an autographed copy.

Posted on

Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram Part 9

September 6, 2024

Introduction

Today’s Commentary returns to the saga of the Banks DIH Limited and its share exchange which has roiled the market, creating a huge problem for insurance companies, commercial banks and pension schemes. Meanwhile the company displays hubris, disdain and contempt for its shareholders, almost inviting them to go to court. Like the politicians, Banks claims that it “has the votes”, less than ten percent of shareholders by number – but with four shareholders accounting for 82% of the votes cast – to compel all shareholders to exchange their shares in a company that has operated successfully for 68 years to become a shareholder in a shell holding company.  

The manner in which the Company has gone about this Scheme of Arrangement is amateurish, without a proper understanding of the law, and violative of every element of transparency, shareholder relationship, basic communication and good corporate governance. In its haste to disenfranchise its shareholders, the company appears to have overlooked the definition of a shareholder to include “a person who agrees to become a shareholder and whose name is entered in the company’s register of members.” [s. 535 (u) (i) of the Companies Act[.

As if that were not bad enough, the company did not address in its application to the Court, or at the Special Meeting of the shareholders, the requirement of section 219 (1) ( e ) for provision to be made for any persons, who within such time and in such manner as the Co directs, dissent from the compromise or arrangement. It is regrettable and unfortunate that the Court did not appear to consider this vital minority shareholder protection in giving its approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. This oversight was compounded by an ex parte application from which the regulator, or any person acting on behalf of the minority shareholders, was excluded. Was this an accident, an oversight or a recognition that such a scheme, properly interrogated, had little chance of succeeding and its only recourse was this awful option.

Emboldened by its victory over unsuspecting shareholders, the company is now on a campaign of coercion to have shareholders exchange their shares in Banks DIH Limited for shares in a company of which they know nothing, and which is no more than a shell. But there is a truly consequential matter of law which the company appears not to know or understand: and that is that for the acquiring company, the pre-acquisition profits of a subsidiary are capital and not revenue. By allowing themselves to be duped into the share exchange, shareholders are giving up some $53,400 Mn. of distributable profits.

Alphabet/Google vs. Banks DIH/Banks DIH Holdings 

A couple nights ago, on a Private Sector Commission group chat, there was circulated, without comment or identity, the following:

‘Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG.’

Whether this is a case of a “little knowledge” can only be speculated, but it seems that another PSC former official was the purveyor of the post. Surely context matters and Delaware, USA laws applicable to  cannot Alphabet/Google cannot be assumed to apply to Guyana. In fact, it is inapplicable. Here are some of the principal differences. The Alphabet and Google 2015 transaction was no sham restructuring, but a genuine separation of Google’s core businesses from its other more risky ventures and projects, such as self-driving cars. If not by design, but surely in effect, the only change is that pre-SoA Banks DIH shareholders are cancelled and become shareholders of a new holding company, a separate legal entity hiding behind what lawyers call a veil. Other than this unequal exchange, there is no restructuring with Banks DIH continuing to hold its subsidiaries, including Citizen’s Bank Limited and Banks Automative and Services Inc.

Another reason for the Alphabet/Google exchange was to increase transparency. In the case of Banks DIH Limited, the motive is the very opposite. No more would shareholders be able to ask questions about Banks’ procurement policies, or the logic of transactions passing through Florida on their way to Europe, or question the role of its directors, independent and non-independent. Under the new Arrangement, a handful of directors, including Banks DIH Chair and CEO, will form the entire Board of the holding company.

Regulatory oversight

The Alphabet/Google restructuring was subject to rigorous regulatory scrutiny by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Alphabet’s Form 8-K filing was highly comprehensive, with detailed financial disclosures, governance changes, and segment reporting. The regulatory filings included risk factors, pro forma financials, and extensive information to ensure transparency and protect shareholder interests. The Form had over one hundred Exhibits, full particulars of the directors and officers, compensation plan, Code of Conduct and Transfer Restriction Agreements with Directors.

Banks DIH went surreptitiously and directly to the Courts, bypassing the Regulator, not once but twice. And the only document of any relevance is a report used as the basis for the action which is hidden from shareholders because it is confidential. Again, I ask whether the battery of advisers is aware of section 140 of the Companies Act. Maybe it realises that compliance would require recognition of dissenting shareholders. Whatever it otherwise is, this is a clear case of contempt for shareholders and disregard for corporate governance.

Transparency  

Alphabet provided investors with detailed disclosures, including segment reporting and, likely, pro forma financial statements to help investors understand the financial implications of the new structure.

Banks DIH has offered none. Shareholders did not have any information to make an informed decision and those who supported the resolution were taking a shot in the dark, a leap of faith in a company whose share price slid from $300 in March 2022 to $108 in April 2024.

While the Scheme of Arrangement states that the new exchanged share will be listed at the price of DIH shares at the time of delisting ($180), the SOA states that those shares have been valued at $1 each! Maybe the directors will explain why a share valued at $1 will be listed at $180.

Retained Earnings

When Google restructured into Alphabet, Alphabet was not subject to any restrictions on retained earnings as is the case in Guyana. No wonder then, as the SOA has volunteered, the shares in the new holding company are valued at $1 per share.

Conclusion

Meanwhile, there is no trading in the shares of Banks DIH Limited while Thirst Park tries its best to persuade shareholders to exchange their shares, and to get the belated approval of the Guyana Securities Council. As other companies which have sought to privatise public companies, including J.P. Santos Limited and Guyana Stockfeeds Limited, Banks DIH Limited will never be able to reduce the number of its shareholders below 50, the “private company” requirement under the Securities Industry Act. So, there will be two public companies, Banks DIH Limited and Banks DIH Holdings Inc., one which is traded on the Stock Exchange, and the other not traded.

Did these companies not consider this possibility as well? Or will they now seek another Court Order by the ex parte route? One wonders whether in his sunset years, Chairman Clifford Reis and company will be able to fix the worst company law/corporate governance fiasco in Guyana’s history, all of their own making. Directors have two principal duties – a fiduciary duty to the company which encompasses its shareholders and employees as well as a general duty of care. It would be a colossal tragedy if these are sacrificed on the altar of anyone’s ego.

Posted on

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 135 – September 6, 2024

Sanctity of Contract vs Sovereignty over Natural Resources – Part 3 (Final)

Introduction

This is the final part of an adaptation of a talk I gave last July at a forum sponsored by the US NGO Oil and Gas Guyana Network (OGGN). The thrust of my contribution was that the Government’s excuse for reneging on its commitment to “review and renegotiate” the 2016 Petroleum Agreement is specious and opportunistic. Even more significantly, the Government ignores the sovereignty issue addressed in Column #134 and more devastatingly, the constitutional question which of course is related to sovereignty.

Today’s column looks at what is described as the Stability Article in the 2016 Agreement, generally referred to as a stability clause. In essence, this Article serves as a protective shield for the oil companies and is designed to maintain a stable legal and economic environment for their investment in Guyana. In effect, the clause freezes the law as it stood in 2016, ensuring that the conditions prevailing at the time the Agreement was signed, would endure until 2056 when the period of exploration and production ends.

Recall that the Agreement was signed by a Minister, and only its tax provisions were incorporated into subsidiary legislation – not the Agreement as a whole. I have always argued that the section under which a Licence could be granted did not allow for Exxon to be issued with another agreement after the 1999 agreement had expired, but that is neither here nor there now. Unfortunately, the APNU+AFC coalition government recklessly bowed to pressure from Exxon and gave them a further license in 2016 by an artifice called a Bridging Deed. Sadly, Guyana now has to live with that Agreement for the next 40 years or so.

Assessing the Stability Clause 

Yet, the fact that the Agreement may not now be set aside does not mean that every provision therein is untouchable. Indeed, any provision in the Agreement which violates the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, if challenged, would be held to be invalid. But let us assess the Stability Clause against the following provisions of the Constitution.

Article 65 (1): Powers and Procedure of Parliament provides that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana.”

Article 8 which provides that “This Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and, if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

Articles or language similar to Article 65 (1) is common in many Commonwealth constitutions and is generally interpreted to confer plenary legislative authority, subject only to express any constitutional limitations. Such a provision is interpreted extremely widely, subject only to other constitutional provisions, including fundamental rights and the separation of powers. Article 8 on the other hand, establishes the Constitution as the supreme law, rendering any laws inconsistent with the Constitution void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Hierarchy

Here then is a hierarchy with the constitution sitting at the apex of the legal system followed by laws properly passed, international Treaties between States, subsidiary legislation and administrative powers and decisions. What this Stability Clause seeks to do is insulate the Agreement from changes, even made under the authority of the Constitution, a clear constitutional and statutory heresy. Here is how it does so.

  1. It nullifies Parliament’s power to legislate granted by Article 65(1).
  2. It violates the principle of constitutional supremacy established in Article 8.
  3. It binds and disempowers future parliaments, as well as Permanent Sovereignty over natural resources, and in respect of fiscal and environmental matters. Such a situation would be completely unacceptable in the UK whose courts have consistently held that no Parliament can bind its successors. UK has parliamentary sovereignty whilst Guyana has constitutional sovereignty, which would mean that a stability clause, unless quite reasonable, will not be enforceable here.

Article 32 of the 2016 agreement is simply too wide and too long. No court can rule that a decision by a minister of government, even if acting within his administrative powers, could prevent successor ministers, Cabinet and Parliaments from carrying out their or its powers in future years.   

Changing judicial attitudes

It is true that the legal community has generally nodded in approval at Stability Clauses, with international arbitrators – often coming from the investor countries – upholding their validity. The trend in recent years, however, has been towards more nuanced approaches. The rigid freezing clauses of yesteryear are giving way to more flexible mechanisms that seek to maintain economic equilibrium rather than absolute legal stasis. This shift represents an attempt to balance the legitimate needs of investors for predictability with the equally valid requirements of states to govern in the public interest, to exercise sovereignty over their natural resources, and to exercise constitutional powers.  

And here is a great real-life example from 2015 in Israel concerning a 10-year stability clause for a gas deal, in which the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the stability clause in the gas deal was unconstitutional because it limited the government’s sovereignty provides a strong precedent. Applying the same legal principles and logic, Article 32 in the 2016 Agreement will not prevail. Here is why.

  1. Guyana’s Constitution has supreme authority. No agreement, regardless of its perceived importance or the principle of “sanctity of contract,” can supersede constitutional principles.
  • Duration of the agreement: The 40-year timespan extends far beyond the term of any single government or minister, raising serious questions about democratic accountability and hobbling future governments from making decisions in the best interests of their citizens.
  • Limitation on governmental powers: No current government should be able to bind successor governments over such an extended period.  
  • There is simply no jurisprudential basis supporting the notion that contract sanctity can override fundamental constitutional principles and national interests.

Quite frankly, the current Government is fully aware that the stability clause is unconstitutional and would be struck down if an application was made to a court of standing. I began this (US) talk by quoting Irfaan “review and renegotiate” and “we will renegotiate” by Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo respectively in statements prior to the PPP assuming power in 2020. Now we hear the  nonsensical and hypocritical cant  about sanctity of contract.

Dr. Maurice Odle in a recent autobiography who attributes the reversal to the PPP/C’s visceral fear of alienating America’s interest, mindful of the US’s role in the PPP’s removal from government in 1953 and 1964. Odle sums up the PPP by saying that “remaining in office is more important to the Party than the effective maximisation of benefits according to the people of Guyana.”

Not only is this explanation as plausible as any but more dangerously, the PPP/C is sacrificing both permanent sovereignty over natural resources as well as the our constitutional sovereignty.  

Posted on

An Eventful Life by Dr. Maurice Odle

A book review by Christopher Ram – Part 3

Odle moves abroad

Odle’s quintessential calling as an international technocratic public servant economist is narrated with a style identifiable to the layperson. He left Guyana in the year of Rodney’s assassination to join the United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) in New York. Over his 17-year tenure with the UN, Odle became a key figure in shaping policies on transnational corporations (TNCs) in developing economies.

Odle operated in several roles and different levels contributing to flagship publications on regulating transnational banks and technology transfer; leading advisory missions to numerous countries, including China and various African nations; and playing a crucial role in discussions with Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress about post-apartheid economic policies in South Africa. Odle did not try to exaggerate his own role or that of the UNCTC but the task of reconciling the apartheid economy into the wider world while attracting international investors into a highly charged political, economic and hugely polarised South Africa was discussed dispassionately, betraying his political experiences from Guyana.

Another highlight of Odle’s UN career was his instrumental role in establishing the World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (WAIPA) in 1995, aimed at facilitating foreign direct investment in developing countries. He also featured prominently in the arrangements for the UNCTASD IX/Africa Connect’ conference in South Africa in 1996, aimed at stimulating increased foreign investment in Africa.

To ensure that he kept abreast with developments in academia while at the UN, Odle retained his earlier contacts and ties with academia, serving as an external examiner for tertiary institutions and participating in academic conferences. This allowed him the opportunity to evaluate in practice some of the emerging ideas and theories in international development economics.

In a This period of Odle’s career coincided with the global shift towards neoliberal economic policies, characterised by a strong emphasis on free market capitalism, deregulation, and reduced government intervention. It was the heyday of supply-side economics and monetarism of which Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were the apostles and the IMF and the World Bank the leading disciples. In Guyana, Hoyte became a convert with Jagan following suit, if reluctantly.

Return to the Region

Upon retiring from the UN in 1997, Odle returned to the Caribbean as a Technical Advisor to CARICOM’s Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM) in which his principal focus was on two major negotiations:

  1. Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) for whichOdle was responsible for negotiating investment and financial services on behalf of the Caribbean. The book describes the challenges facing small economies in areas like dispute settlement and performance requirements. After years of negotiations and preparation, the FTAA failed for the reasons set out in Odle’s book on page 123.
  • Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union for which Odle was deeply involved in preparing background papers and negotiation briefs. He provides a critical analysis of the EPA, signed in 2008, suggesting that it has not delivered the anticipated benefits to the Caribbean. Odle cites experts like Norman Girvan and Havelock Brewster, who critiqued the EPA’s potential to undermine regional integration efforts.

Odle saw these initiatives through the lens of a heterodox economist from a country and region carrying the scars of slavery, indentureship and colonialism. Throughout the negotiations, Odle was mindful of the inherent inequalities faced by smaller economies when negotiating with larger, more powerful entities.

The final phase of Odle’s career saw him serving as Special Economic Adviser to the CARICOM Secretary-General, focusing on deepening regional integration through the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).

In that capacity, Odle played a role in authoring research papers on the interface between regionalism and globalisation, negotiating complex regional agreements like the CARICOM Investment Code and initiating the Caribbean Trade and Investment Report (CTIR), a crucial publication for informing policymakers about regional integration issues.

Odle’s account of this period is particularly enlightening, offering a candid assessment of the challenges facing Caribbean integration. He cites issues such as low intra-regional trade, failure to implement agreed-upon policies (CARICOM’s Curse?), and the lack of political will among leaders as key obstacles to deeper integration.

His frustration with the challenges of intra-CARICOM negotiations faced by technocrats was barely disguised, confronting a suffocating level of bureaucratic obstacles and indecision by representatives of insular member states. In discussing his efforts to improve the information and publication policies of the CARICOM Secretariat, Odle complains about difficulties in securing support and resources for initiatives like the CTIR, highlighting the ongoing struggle to prioritise regional integration efforts.

Back to Guyana

Of course, Odle was literally at home in Guyana where the CARICOM Secretariat is located but the end of his engagement with CARICOM saw his reluctant re-entry into Guyana’s political sphere. Odle renewed his relationship with the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and when that party became engaged in Coalition politics with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), a coalition that included the WPA and other parties in 2015, Odle was appointed to several important positions.

The book details his experiences serving on various boards and committees, including:

  1. The Tax Reform Committee: Odle chaired this committee, which was tasked with reforming Guyana’s tax system. However, the implementation of their bold recommendations proved politically contentious and the target of the then political opposition.

As a member of that Committee along with Godfrey Statia and Dr. Thomas Singh, I believe that inadequate communication of the rationale of the recommendations as well as their deliberate mischaracterisation is a good reason for having a non-partisan mechanism for future tax reform.

  1. National Industrial and Commercial Investments Ltd (NICIL): As chairperson of NICIL, Odle faced numerous challenges, including conflicts with the CEO and issues surrounding land distribution and privatisation.

Odle relates a falling out with his former WPA buddy and comrade Dr. Clive Thomas who as Chairperson of the State-owned Guyana Sugar Corporation had accused Odle of “misleading the nation.”

  1. Tax Ruling by the CCJ: Odle functioned as an economic advisor in a case involving environmental taxes on non-reusable beverage containers, highlighting the complexities of regional trade agreements and environmental policies. As an economist and regionalist, while Odle accepted the ruling, he expressed concerns that the Court had failed to acknowledge the Government’s defence of passing-on, leading to unjust enrichment of the private company from Suriname.

As one who was also a technical adviser to the Guyana Government in the case, I believe that Odle’s comment is more than valid and justified. Indeed, it is my firm belief that foreign companies seem to get the benefit of doubts at almost every level and forum in Guyana.

Throughout this period, Odle grappled with the challenges of governance in Guyana’s complex political landscape. He provides insights into the difficulties of implementing reforms, managing state assets, and navigating political tensions within a coalition government. Odle also touches on the emergence of Guyana’s oil industry and the establishment of the Natural Resource Fund, highlighting the potential impact on the country’s economy and the challenges of managing this new resource.

The fourth and concluding part will appear next Sunday in which I will offer my own take on the book.

Posted on

An Eventful Life by Dr. Maurice Odle

A book review by Christopher Ram – Part 2

For many Guyanese, chapter 3 of Odle’s memoir is the most exciting and interesting, covering a period from the late sixties to the year 1980, the year of the assassination of Walter Rodney. Odle’s return to Guyana in 1967, armed with a degree from the London School of Economics, coincided with the country’s early years of independence and a time of great political and social upheaval.

It was during Odle’s tenure at the University of Guyana – where he attained the position of Head of the Department of Economics and later Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences – that political tensions in Guyana took a turn for the worse, with Odle himself drawn into activism against the increasingly authoritarian government of Forbes Burnham. According to Odle’s telling, it was the refusal of the Board of the University of Guyana to appoint Rodney to a position in the institution after being refused re-entry to Jamaica that was a more overt resistance to the Burnham’s increasing authoritarianism.

University lecturers were partly behind the underground publication “Ratoon” by the Ratoon/MAO Group (MAO stands for Movement Against Oppression) which joined with  other groups led respectively by Moses Bhagwan, Eusi Kwayana and Brindley Benn to form the Working People’s Alliance first as a non-political movement. Street corner meetings at which these persons, along with Clive Thomas, and Rodney resonated with large multi-racial crowds unhappy with the economic and social hardships brought about by Burnham’s extreme nationalistic policies. People’s Power, No Dictator became a battle cry while Rodney taunted Burnham, likening him to King Kong. Things took a serious turn when the building housing the Ministry of National Mobilisation and Office of the General Secretary of the PNC was destroyed by fire, leading to swift rounding up of WPA leaders including another academic Omawale, Rupert Roopnarine, Bonita Bone, Karen DeSouza, Kwame Apatha, and Rodney himself.

Prior to Odle’s arrest, Rodney had called to ask him to take his young children to school, but even as he did so, he too was arrested and taken to a Police Station where he managed to use sign language to communicate with Rodney. It was during his detention that Odle swallowed pieces of a sensitive paper, no doubt with incriminating information.

The Guyana university campus became a cauldron of political activity, with Odle and his colleagues at the forefront of intellectual resistance. This led to escalating tensions between the academic community and the government, including incidents of intimidation, surveillance, and attempts to silence critics. One of Odle’s colleagues Dr. Josh Ramsammy barely survives an assassination attempt in broad daylight, but the murders of Rodney’s bodyguard Edward Dublin, Ohene Kaoma, WPA’s office manager and Jesuit priest Bernard Darke in a wave of terror led by Rabbi Washington and the House of Israel, attracting regional and international attention. But it was the assassination of Walter Rodney in 1980 which marks a tragic trigger point, sending shockwaves across Guyana, the Caribbean and the progressive world, leaving an indelible mark on Guyana’s political landscape.

The impression was that Odle was a reluctant politician, avoiding the political platform but using his pen, his courage and his contacts to support the political leaders, rather than being one of them. Unlike Rodney who was denied a job in Guyana and was forced into full time political activities, Odle had a senior job in academia with politics a secondary calling, forcing him into a delicate and dangerous balance of academic pursuit with political activism. In the process, Odle managed to produce significant academic work, including research on monetary policy and development economics.

Odle did not confine is academic relationships with Guyanese such as Clive Thomas and Havelock Brewster but was part of that elite group of Caribbean intellectuals that included Alistair McIntyre, George Beckford, Lloyd Best, Hilary Beckles, Norman Girvan, Trevor Munroe and Carl Stone. In this context, Odle highlights his Caribbean connections not only in the professional field but in the post-colonial struggles in Guyana and similar movements across the region. Odle’s interactions with Caribbean intellectuals and his involvement in regional academic networks highlight the interconnected nature of Caribbean political thought during this period. Odle describes the assassination of Grenada Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, described as a comrade dedicated to the struggle on behalf of the poor and the powerless, nearly “as traumatic as that of Walter Rodney.” 

For many Guyanese, this phase of Odle’s life was the most interesting, bringing back evocative memories of an era during which the promise of independence gave way to the realities of post-colonial challenges, and when intellectuals and activists played a crucial role in shaping national discourse. Odle’s personal odyssey during the period was not dissimilar to that of many of his contemporaries who struggled to reconcile their roles as academics, citizens, and activists in a rapidly changing and often dangerous political landscape.

Like so many of them, he too moved on, to start a career as an international public servant, as a professional staff of the United Nations, beginning in 1980.