Dear Editor,
Readers would recall that I had questioned Melinda Janki’s modus operandi in challenging ExxonMobil’s operations in Guyana wherein she is seeking to sue that company together with the Government of Guyana (GoG). I had pointed out that there is some amount of evidence that suggested she worked for ExxonMobil sometime during 1999 and 2015.
I am now writing in reference to her letter carried in the Stabroek News edition of February 3, 2023, with the caption `I did not represent Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement.’
Though I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, there are a myriad of inconsistencies in her letter that I am hard-pressed to leave unaddressed. The author, who is often described as an international attorney and transparency advocate claimed that she did not represent Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement. The undersigned’s contention, however, is not whether she represented Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement, per se, but whether she worked for ExxonMobil and earned from ExxonMobil at some point in time, in relation to Exxon’s operations in Guyana. Given her response, she has explicitly and implicitly confirmed that she has worked for ExxonMobil in Guyana. To this end, she claimed in her letter that De Caires, Fitzpatrick and Karran were the lawyers for Exxon at the time, and confirmed that she was one of the firm’s consultant lawyers. She went on further to state that Miles Fitzpatrick “put her name” on the document because nobody else (in the law firm) knew anything about oil. By her own admission as described above, the international attorney confirmed that though in a third-party capacity, she was contracted by a law firm in Guyana that was hired by Exxon at the time.
According to her, she was assigned on the basis that no one else in the law firm had experience in the global oil and gas industry. In the very letter, the transparency advocate goes onto implicate herself further by disclosing her experience working with big oil companies like BP during those days as a lawyer. She also disclosed that Exxon had a power of attorney with her in 1999 which authorized her to receive lawful notices, accept service of process etc. Obviously, these services provided by her to Exxon directly and indirectly through the referenced law firm, were not for free. In these respects, the attorney and transparency advocate confirmed categorically that she worked for Exxon, this means she earned from Exxon in the past, and now she is leading a campaign against Exxon’s operations in Guyana. The obvious question in these circumstances is, why didn’t she drive these campaigns during those years? Why now? If, as she claimed, she is championing a good cause for the planet with utmost sincerity, then why a lawsuit with EEPGL, a subsidiary company of ExxonMobil in Guyana together with the Guyana Government? This should be a global campaign and she should be fighting her legal battle with the parent company in the United States (U.S) and in a U.S court of law, and not Guyana.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
Financial & Economic Analyst
