Attorney at law and commentator Christopher Ram has said that Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC should be concerned that Guyana has ceded legislative sovereignty to ExxonMobil.
In a letter that appears in today’s Stabroek News, Ram was referring to, among other things, the Stability clause in the much-criticised 2016 Pro-duction Sharing Agreement (PSA) with ExxonMobil which circumscribes legislative changes.
Ram’s comment came as public concern grows that statements made by the Attorney General following Thursday’s meeting between President Irfaan Ali and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro appear intended to curtail the strong local criticism of ExxonMobil over what has been seen as an exploitative deal.
Nandlall on Saturday sounded a note of caution about what he termed “reckless speculative pontification” and “loose public statements” on the Venezuela controversy, arguing that such had harmed this country in its border issue with its neighbour to the east, Suriname.
He then went on to apply that same need for discretion as it relates to ExxonMobil, stating that at the Thursday meeting, President Maduro was armed with several volumes of documents.
“Many of those were compilations of public statements made on this matter, critical commentaries on the operations of Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) and the several legal proceedings filed in relation thereto – all extracted from our local media.
“These are materials which Venezuela is using to bolster their narrative. Whatever weight is placed upon them, they certainly do not and will not assist Guyana in any form or fashion.
“In the future, therefore, those who wish to travel this road by making such statements, or taking such actions, must now become alive to this consequential reality”, the Attorney General said.
In an interview with this newspaper later on Saturday, Nandlall was more specific.
He said Maduro had documents, containing information on the 2016 ExxonMobil Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) and the various reports by citizens claiming that ExxonMobil is robbing Guyana of its oil and gas resources.
“We noticed that Maduro had articles and reports on how Exxon is ripping Guyana off in light of the PSA and other loose statements that were reported in the public domain on how citizens were accusing the government of allowing Exxon to enter an agreement that would disenfranchise the country of its resources, it was that kind of fallacious and misleading information he had at the meeting”, he said.
The Attorney General added that “Maduro also had critical commentaries on the operations of Esso Exploration and Produc-tion Guyana Limited (EEPGL) and the several legal proceedings filed in relation thereto – all extracted from the local media”.
Against this background, Nandlall said the Venezuelan President is using the negative reports about Exxon in Guyana to solidify his arguments that the oil company must exit Essequibo as it “clearly” has no good intentions for oil production.
The AG asserted that while Maduro is using this opportunity to “build a case” against the US oil company amid these threats for it to cease all operations in Essequibo within the stipulated time frame, the Venezuelan Leader’s plans will never work.
“What he was saying at the meeting (was) there are citizens who are not in favour of ExxonMobil due to their track record of exploiting other developing countries in the oil and gas sector, Maduro should not have any business with Exxon’s operations in the county of Essequibo because his plans will never work”, Nandlall added.
Ram said that following the Kaieteur News article featuring comments made by Nandlall on the use by Maduro of “critical commentaries about Exxon in Guyana”, he messaged Nandlall and spoke with him about his comments and the not unreasonable inference that that statement could be interpreted as a threat of aiding and abetting the enemy.
“He offered his unequivocal assurance that no such interpretation was intended, and that as a lawyer, he would never suggest that commentators should feel themselves less than free to write”, Ram said.
He added: “I do not think that Mr. Nandlall needs to be reminded that the singular wish of all commentators is to get the best possible deal for the country and its people from our exhaustible petroleum resources. We do not criticise for its own sake, but to highlight the multitude of weaknesses in, and the egregiously poor oversight of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement. After years of tone deafness, commentators and the silent Guyanese are frustrated by the Government’s unwillingness to address any of the glaring deficiencies which result in serious loss of revenue to Guyana, each and every day.
“More than just not wanting to muzzle commentaries, Mr. Nandlall should share their concerns, and let his superiors know that their ineffectiveness in the administration of the petroleum sector is the biggest part of the problem. More than mere bystanders, the Government operates as accomplices of Exxon which has a deservedly bad record of illegal and improper conduct – both internationally and locally.
“As Attorney General, parliamentarian and a lawyer who has been involved in multiple constitutional cases, Mr. Nandlall should be more concerned than the average commentator that Guyana has ceded legislative sovereignty to Exxon for close to sixty years, or two generations of Guyanese. And that the Granger/Trotman gave to Exxon a second petroleum agreement which the law does not seem to permit”.
Ram added that Nandlall should also be concerned that Exxon has siphoned off vast sums money received from investors, including Shell; that it blatantly padded pre-contract costs over and above what its audited financial statements of Exxon and those of its partners showed; that it unlawfully and improperly engaged a public official to write off the disallowance of a claim of US$211 million; and that while those financial statements are inconsistent and misleading, his colleague Minister of Natural Resources annually calls on the GRA to issue receipts for taxes which they do not pay.
“As a citizen and leader, Mr. Nandlall should join the call for a Commission of Inquiry into the award of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement for which the Clyde & Co report provides compelling evidence. He should be offended that a top official of Exxon wrote the Cabinet Paper which led to that infamous Agreement. As a lawyer, he should use all his talent and the resources at his disposal to make the case for re-negotiation of the 2016 Agreement. And as a citizen, he should join his fellow citizens to make that happen.
“I take this opportunity to advise Mr. Nandlall that if the government addresses the issues identified above, as well as others raised by commentators, he can be assured of compliments and commendations in place of criticisms and complaints. And finally, that no commentator or media house that I know would think of helping Maduro’s unlawful and baseless claim to two-thirds of Guyana”, Ram said.
Yesterday’s editorial in the Stabroek News also expressed concern over Nandlall’s remarks.
“It is indeed important that media here, commentators and other stakeholders refrain from making statements or providing any basis for undermining Guyana’s case in the border controversy and where such occur the authors should be immediately disabused of their ignorance and schooled on what is permissible.
“However, it is an entirely different matter to conflate legitimate criticism here of ExxonMobil’s activities with the perspective that this will somehow aid Mr Maduro’s case and weaken Guyana’s position on the frontier and related matters. Mr Nandlall himself recognises that Mr Maduro should not have any business with Exxon’s operations and he mentioned Essequibo although the oil production is occurring in the Atlantic off the Demerara Coast.
“President Maduro has no business mentioning ExxonMobil’s operations here and he should be given short shrift on the matter and no government official here should be seen to be giving even tacit recognition of this. Oil operations in Guyana’s waters have no bearing on the border controversy case before the International Court of Justice and that’s where this government should be laser-focused”, the editorial stated.
It added: “And just so that there is no misunderstanding of it, ExxonMobil is indeed engaged in rapacious exploitation of Guyana’s oil with the full acquiescence of this government and its predecessor. The longer that that continues the more stakeholders in this country will question the judgement of this government as it relates to stewardship of the country’s resources. The pressure that has been brought to bear over the unjust Production Sharing Agreement of 2016 should be elevated until both the government and ExxonMobil realise that they have to return to the negotiating table in the interest of their shareholders and stakeholders. That was never the business of Mr Maduro and Caracas and that’s the way it should remain”.
