Following a charge that it had lied about Dr Vincent Adams on Tuesday before the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva, Guyana yesterday said that it found it inappropriate to be asked about the appointment of the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Head.
Guyana’s representative, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira clarified yesterday that when she referenced former EPA head Dr Adams on Tuesday it was to highlight how the state party felt about his role towards the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement.
This was not what Teixeira had told the committee on Tuesday. She told the committee that Adams had overseen the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA).
She said on Tuesday in response to a question from French representative Hélène Tigroudja : “In fact the former Commissioner or Director of.the EPA oversaw the Production Sharing Agreement which has been criticized by all, including my government. And so I think sometimes [ inaudible] and so the issue of the former Director, he oversaw. He was part of the secret PSA of 2016 and nobody knew about it, until a year later when the press, thankfully disclosed on the fact that the signature bonus had been parked in a foreign account by the government”.
Teixeira added: “And so the government has a right to replace the Director. In fact the EPA has a Board. And the Board has reviewed the applications and appointed the new Director of the EPA”, she said.
Yesterday, Tigroudja signalled to the Guyana delegation that she had had different information and wanted a clarification.
“According to information we received, he (Dr Adams) was not working and began his mandate on the 1st October 2018. Two years, three months after the agreement. So I would like to ask the delegation to come back to this point so that they can give clear credible information of this concern”, Tigroudja said.
It was then Teixeira objected to the question and said the response had been in relation to how the state party felt about Dr Adams’ role in relation to the PSA.
“The issue regarding the former Director, the former Director did not appear to have a problem when he was there from 2019 onwards, to implement the PSA of 2016 which we all know was flawed and which we cannot change at this point , because it was contract law and so that (was) the reference made,” Teixeira said.
She also told the Committee that Guyana was registering its objections on being asked about the process for selecting the new agency Director as it found the question “odd” and “strange” and downright “inappropriate”.
‘The question yesterday (Tuesday) came requesting the qualifications and on what basis or process (for) the director of the EPA. We find this an odd question regarding a person that is appointed by a statutory Board and the law in our country. We found it strange and we explained that there was a Board …that would have gone through (that process)…And we do not feel it is appropriate to ask a country with regards to appointment of a person who is appointed by a Board of our country. The Boards are covered by law…,” she stated.
Objected
Following Teixeira’s appearance on Tuesday before the Committee, Adams objected as he said that the Parliamentary Affairs Minister had lied about his role.
In a letter addressed to the Human Rights Committee, Adams, who was fired by the PPP/C government, said that while listening to Tuesday’s responses on questions with respect to Guyana’s EPA, “I was flabbergasted by what appeared to be her (Teixeira’s) carefully prepared answer littered with gross untruthfulness”.
He charged that it was a complete fabrication and disrespectfulness by the Minister towards the Committee, when she barefacedly proclaimed that he “oversaw the 2016 Exxon/Government of Guyana Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) which was widely criticized”; and that he was responsible for the hiding of some sort of US$18 Million signing bonus.
Adams pointed out that the PSA was signed in June 2016, while he was still employed as a Senior Executive (highest levels of the USA Government) with the highest national security clearance in the Department of Energy.
“As such, it would have been a very serious violation of the US laws, national security, and my oath of office to be working for another Government. Not only is this Minister’s accusation false and disrespectful to the Committee, but it also puts me at risk of being branded as conducting illegal and unpatriotic acts against the USA”, Adams asserted.
He added that he retired from the US Government on December 31, 2016, and did not take up employment as Head of the EPA until October 1, 2018, a full 2 years and 3 months after the PSA was signed.
He also adverted to a Stabroek News front page article of February 4, 2018, see https://www.stabroeknews.com/2018/02/04/news/guyana/exxon-should-pay-us1b-up-frontto-guyana-energy-expert-says/, to attest to the fact that he was the first to publicly criticize the PSA “before it became a popular thing to do; and driven by my professionalism, I have continued to do so, even when Head of the EPA under the previous Government that signed the PSA. Thus, her suggestion that I was responsible for crafting and defending it, is a deliberate falsehood to mislead the Committee”.
He pointed out that the EPA has absolutely nothing to do with the crafting and/or managing the PSA, for that would be an obvious conflict of interest. It was crafted, and is managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, he added.
Guyana’s delegation was questioned on a range of topics, including the reason for Adams’ dismissal.
Adams’ dismissal by the PPP/C government was widely seen as a move to seize control of the EPA and pave the way for swift approval of ExxonMobil projects.
On Tuesday when she first raised the question about Adams, Tigroudja said: “When a state becomes an oil producer, there are influencers that can come to try to distort or deviate benefits from those who should receive it, namely the Guyanese people.
“And of course this EPA, according to the information we received that is on the website, one of the shortcomings of this agency is the director has just changed and it would appear that the person who was the director of the agency before was extremely competent. And when the current party came to power…the Director was changed. One of the criticisms against this new Director is perhaps (that he is not) so well versed in environmental standards.
“And to allow oil companies therefore to come into your country and exploit the oil resources without respecting the environment standards that are very high indeed. So I have a very specific institutional question and that is, who chooses the director of the agency for environmental protection? How can we be sure and are you sure of his or her independence?”
Three days of questioning of Guyana on its periodic report ended yesterday. Teixeira and her delegation appeared virtually.
The UN committee is expected to issue concluding remarks at a later date.
