Dear Editor,
Two issues have been dominating the headlines in Guyana for months – the flawed Exxon Oil Contract and the Essequibo border issue. However, what is generally missing from the discourse is the link between the two. The Essequibo issue is a colonialist and Cold War legacy that now afflicts both Guyana and Venezuela. All the borders in the Americas and Africa are colonial imposed borders. However, the Essequibo border controversy was deliberately revived in the 1960’s as a pretext for invasion by Washington and London and the then right wing Government in Caracas, as at that time Cheddie Jagan who was the Premier in the 1950’s and early 1960’s in Guyana, was pro-Soviet, and the Empire to the North was concerned that with him in power, there would be a second Cuba.
So they resurrected a Lazurus claim to provide a pretext for invasion, and used their then puppet, LFS Burnham, to legitimise it. Today, both Guyana and Venezuela are saddled with the legacy of this Cold War act, with the resultant nationalist fervour that accompanies it. We are led to believe that oil was only discovered off the Guyana Coast in 2015, however, with the vast reserves in Venezuela, it was assured that oil would be in Guyana, as the Americans were well aware, hence another reason for their early interest in Guyana.
Exxon, when they signed the flawed 2015 Contract, secretly provided the Granger Administration with US$18 million to initiate legal action before the International Court on the border matter. This “Signing Bonus” was hidden from the public for over a year until its existence was eventually leaked. By providing this funding for the International Court’s legal costs, Exxon proved that it was fully aware that the Guyana Government was acting under duress when it signed a blatantly undervalued Contract that violated the spirit of the Geneva Accord’s Article V (2). It is trite law that a Contract made under duress, is voidable at the instance of the party acting under duress. The Vice President makes regular reference to the maxim of the “Sanctity of Contract” when upholding the flawed Exxon Contract, however, a better approach would be to challenge it based on it having been made under duress. Exxon manifestly had Constructive Notice of the duress.
Sincerely,
Lalu Hanuman
(Attorney-at-Law)
Christ Church, Barbados
