Newly-appointed Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Nigel Hughes has brushed aside concerns about potential conflicts of interest over the oil industry.
Amidst allegations that his partnership in the Hughes, Fields & Stoby law firm, which represents ExxonMobil, could compromise his ability to lead the party without bias, Hughes emphasized his commitment to separating personal and political interests.
During a press conference held at the party’s headquarters yesterday, Hughes noted that the AFC has decided to establish an oil and gas advisory committee, headed by Dr. Vincent Adams and Member of Parliament (MP) David Patterson. The two, Hughes said, will be responsible for making decisions on oil and gas policy, and he (Hughes) will have no involvement in this committee.
Further, the party leader pledged to relinquish all ties with the law firm in question, should he be elected into governance.
“In my capacity as Leader of the AFC I am not in a position to influence government policy particularly as it relates to Exxon. I may however be in a position to influence AFC policy on oil and gas… In consideration of these matters the Party has appointed Dr. Vince Adams and Mr David Patterson to head the AFC oil and gas advisory committee with full powers to invite highly skilled technical experts both locally and internationally onto the committee. Until we attain government I will have no input in or involvement with the AFC oil and gas committee. Within the first hundred days of being elected to office I will establish the Petroleum Commission… If and when elected to office I will relinquish all ties with the Firm of Hughes Fields and Stoby,” he stated.
During the first decade of the 2000s he said that he an Andrew Pollard who were involved in the management of the law firm “determined that we would concentrate our efforts on the oil industry and Andrew Pollard S.C has exclusively managed the client Exxon Mobil.
“I have never advised, participated or assisted Exxon in any negotiations with the Government of Guyana (GOG) at any stage. During the Coalition government I did not act for or assist either the Government of Guyana or the Exxon. I have never held any government office or advised the GOG”, Hughes said
Hughes also addressed the allegations, by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, about him being a Politically Exposed Person (PEP). He emphasized that being a PEP is not inherently problematic and noted that he and his wife, who was a minister in the APNU+AFC administration have consistently declared their assets to the Integrity Commission.
“On the subject of Politically Exposed Person, I have been a politically exposed person since 2011 when my wife became a member of the National Assembly and subsequently Minister. We have consistently declared our assets to the Integrity Commission. There is no magic in PEP,” Hughes said.
He referenced several examples of other politicians who have held multiple roles, including David Thompson’s practice of law while serving as Prime Minister of Barbados.
When questioned, Patterson reiterated the committee’s stance on renegotiating the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with ExxonMobil, citing the need for a better deal for the Guyanese public.
“I can restate our position which remains since 2020, the lines which [run] in favour of any revision of any PSA, which will be to the benefit of the Guyanese public and we maintain that position. So yes… And I’ve made this statement in Parliament… since 2020… When the Petroleum Activities Bill was tabled, I think sometime last year, which was to bring in a new law and a new PSA endorsing… I tabled 34 amendments… on how we expect going forward. What we want to do now. And one of the amendments clearly stated that we recognize that Exxon has done some pioneering work, but we also recognize that there are 34 discoveries. They’ve only been given sanctions for I think six or seven. And we said in the amendment is that what we would like to cap it. They have this existing agreement, we cap it to whatever it is, whatever cut-off year, I think the cutoff year was 2025, to whatever they have in production for 2025 remains is the old thing and all the rest continues under the new law. That was one of the amendments, so in other words, we were trying to recognize their primary network… to get a better deal going forward, because 34 discoveries… they only received production agreements for seven, I think six or seven. So, if you do the math we did there’s still a lot of work, there’s still a lot of… for them to go to production with,” Patterson said.
Adams also emphasized that renegotiation is a normal part of the process, as outlined in clause 42 of the contract, which allows for changes and modifications.
“The contract allows for changes, modifications, those were the exact words. It says anything within that contract. There’s nothing outside of the contract, [just] a normal process as part of the contract. So, whatever the process is, that’s what we will proceed with, if necessary,” he stated.
