Dear Editor,
I write now to further the debate on the funding of the Wales natural gas pipeline, in particular whether funding a Government of Guyana stake in it from cost oil is constitutional. I have previously indicated that unlike the FPSO’s, which are funded from cost oil and the Government of Guyana does not own, in order for Guyana to own this pipeline it must seek funding from the National Assembly, much the same as it would need to seek funding to build a road.
It has been argued, in particular by a certain Joel Bhagwandin, that “it is the source of funding that determines at what stage it (presumably the pipeline’s cost) goes to parliament.” Duly, this contention implies that there are circumstances in which the government can fund immensely expensive national infrastructure projects before it goes to the National Assembly for approval.
Now if that doesn’t raise alarm bells, I don’t know what will. What is the point of the legislative arm of government if the executive can spend sums larger than entire past national budgets before even approaching it?
It is my understanding that the government can only spend without National Assembly approval in narrow, specific circumstances, which is certainly not what we see here. It is perfectly fine for
ExxonMobil to acquire a pipeline for itself and cost recover it, but where in the PSA does it say the government can purchase a pipeline from Exxon with cost oil? Where in the constitution does it say the government can purchase anything at all without the National Assembly’s assent? As I have pointed out before, this is deeply troubling and our Venezuelan neighbours experimented with this method of direct funding, leading to widespread economic ruin.
More troubling still, is that Mr. Bhagwandin seems to believe that the “State/Government of Guyana” owns our oil reserves. A first year political science student will tell you that the government doesn’t own anything. It is the people who own the nation’s assets; the government, with the consent of the governed, merely acts on their behalf. This distinction may seem small but wars have been fought over it, kings been executed and entire systems of government developed to establish that a nation belongs to its people, not whatever authority attempts to control them.
What I would ask readers to note is that we often see in the government an extension of this line of thinking. They place important bills like the Natural Resource Fund Bill before the National
Assembly only a few days before it is due to be passed, or refuse to release the country’s new model PSA despite commencing an auction of the nation’s oil blocks. They hide audits of the titanic cost-oil bills the country faces and refuse to release vital documents for major national projects like this pipeline. It is as if they believe that the nation belongs to them, the government, the PPP, and not ordinary Guyanese. In fact, Stabroek News in its own editorial stated that it feels more and more like Guyanese are “tenants in the PPP’s country.”
I will close by saying that the Public Procurement Commission is one of the agencies that will be bypassed in this process, and that the writer seeking to defend the government’s overreach is in
fact, if you can believe this, a commissioner of that very body.
If the Public Procurement Commission’s Commissioners, who are tasked with overseeing national spending, will not stand up for the rights of their own constitutionally mandated institution, then we really are in a bad way. I would ask this commissioner to reflect on his sworn duty to Guyana, and to recognize the dangers that come from unchecked executive power.
Yours,
Elson Low,
Economic and Youth Policy
Advisor to the Leader of the
Opposition
