Introduction
President Irfaan Ali was visibly upset by the disclosure in the Stabroek News of Guyana’s suspension from the Norway-based Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The body was formed in London in June 2003 when representatives from governments, companies, industry groups, international and civil society organisations agreed to the EITI principles and establishing the EITI as a multi-stakeholder international group.
A recurring theme of EITI’s principles was accountability and transparency. The objective was to reverse the history and experiences which showed that the benefits of oil, gas and mining activity were not being realised but rather were associated with poverty, conflict and corruption.
EITI’s core values are accountability and transparency, which is mentioned in at least four of the 12 values. Requirement 2.4 of the EITI Standard includes the publication of the full text of contracts and licenses that came into force after 1 January 2021 and their amendments. Further, a regime and embrace of contract transparency, the public availability of all contracts and licenses in force, the disclosure of the policy and legislative framework, and the documentation of any deviations from the disclosure policy are recognised as critical elements of transparency and accountability.
Guyana joined the EITI on 25 October 2017 under the APNU+AFC Government under which the 2017 and 2018 country Reports were submitted to EITI. The 2019 Report was prepared under APNU+AFC Government but submitted under the PPP/C Government.
Bad signals
The suspension comes soon after the disclosure of a stalled improvement in Guyana’s rating of the perceptions of public corruption index compiled by the Berlin-based Transparency International; evidence of large-scale cross-border money-laundering which appears to have gone on for several years; and the replacement of Dr. Rudy Jadoopat the head of the Guyana EITI by Dr. Prem Misir, the current head. While Jadoopat’s contract had come to an end, many in society thought that Misir’s long-standing relationship with the PPP/C had some influence in his appointment.
Among groups critical of that appointment was Article 13 which called on the civil society representatives on the multi-stakeholder group “to reconsider their participation in the MSG as offering legitimacy to a compromised organisation.” There is no indication at this stage whether Dr. Misir knew of the impending suspension, whether he informed the political directorate and what he did that might have contributed to, or to prevent the embarrassment.
The President attributed blame for the suspension on named private sector representatives on the MSG. Announcing that his government “stands resolute and strongly behind every single institution that promotes transparency and accountability”, the President vowed to spare no effort in advancing transparency and accountability in everything his government does. He does have an uphill task.
Government record
The Government’s record on disclosure has at best been weak, preferring to keep matters within a very closed group. In respect of oil and gas, oversight is restricted to less than a handful with no independent Petroleum Commission in sight. In fact, the Vice President, the key Government spokesperson on petroleum sought to discredit such commissions by claiming that they are no safeguard against corruption, even telling a journalist that he “can tell [the journalist] about the countries with the worse corruption track records that have Petroleum Commissions that are independent.” There is no report of a follow-up question.
The Vice President also subjected the local transparency body TIGI to a public flaying over a report in which the body had no part. This followed the publication of Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) which showed that Guyana’s improvement in the CPI has stalled. The President has shown an equal reluctance towards transparency, announcing recently that his Government would release the contracts for the Gas-to-Energy project which will cost Guyana mega-US Dollars, “at the appropriate time”. That is not what the EITI principles call for.
The Government is also attracting unwelcome and negative publicity in showing disdain for the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly while tolerating a non-functioning office of the Commissioner of Information. An effective and efficient Commissioner of Information would have contributed to an environment of openness and transparency.
While contracts not involving the Government do not attract the EITI framework, individuals and some private sector companies are making a mockery of the Local Content Act and the beneficial ownership declarations under the Companies Act. They are selling their birthright and the country’s interest in some of these local content arrangements.
Foreign diplomats hear and discuss these gratuitous attacks, relaying them back to their own countries where they do not make for positive reading. The Government might think that the attacks make them popular with their supporters and within the Party. Those have their own consequences including breeding the resource curse locally and losing friends internationally.
Next week we will look at the Court’s decision in the Glenn Lall case
