Dear Editor,
What is and what is not a conflict of interest vs a politically exposed person in Guyana has sparked a new, sharp and contentious public controversy. Mainstream media has published editorials as well as the views of political leaders on the subject. Letters to the editors from commentators are also available.
Never mind it has been said before, for the sake of emphasis it’s important that it be repeated; The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (as subsequently amended) defines ‘a politically exposed person as follows: ‘any individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions on behalf of a state, including a Head of State or of government, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state owned corporations, important political party officials, and a person who is or has been entrusted with a prominent function by an international organization, at the level of senior management, including directors, deputy directors and members of the board or equivalent functions including family members or close associates of the politically exposed person whether that person is resident in Guyana or not.’ The law is unambiguous about who is and who is not a politically exposed person. I know I am one.
As regards ‘conflict of interest, ‘in its June 23, 2024 edition, under the caption; Conflict of Interest Explained: Types and Examples,’ ‘Investopedia’ magazine, ‘a comprehensive investing and finance dictionary to make finance and investing easier to understand…’ states; ‘A conflict of interest occurs when an entity or individual becomes unreliable because of a clash between personal (or self-serving) interests and professional duties or responsibilities. Such a conflict occurs when a company or person has a vested interest – such as money, status, knowledge, relationships, or reputation—which puts into question whether their actions, judgment, or decision-making can be unbiased. When such a situation arises, the party with the conflict of interest is usually asked to remove themselves, and it is often legally required of them.’
The controversy over the ‘application of these two precepts in a Guyanese context arose in the light of public disagreements between the GOG, Nigel Hughes and ExxonMobil.
While disagreements can be unpleasant, even offensive, they are nevertheless vital to Guyanese who are keen to know the positions held by the contenders. Without publication of the exchanges between them we will remain in the dark as regards the contending perspectives.
The VP has expressed his concern that there may very well be a conflict of interest as regards the relationship between the leader of the AFC and ExxonMobil and that that relationship may require an investigation into the real possibility that politically-exposed persons can use their position of influence to sway business transactions. Said the VP; “We are watching what Exxon and the others will do… this may necessitate a formal investigation into all these matters,”
The VP went on to say; “… there is a possibility that ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) can fund the AFC campaign under the pretense of legal services, given that the oil company is a client of Hughes’ law firm.”
And as if ‘thickening the plot’, Exxon’s Alistair Routledge came out publicly contradicting the VP stating; Nigel Hughes-Exxon relationship does not represent a conflict of interest.
“There is no conflict of interest between Hughes being one of Exxon’s attorneys and him being leader of the AFC.”
By jumping into the debate Routledge took the controversy to another level.
In the circumstances, all should ‘fasten their safety belts’ and look forward to a more vigorous back and forth between the economist, the lawyer and the spokesperson about conflict of interest versus politically exposed persons. While open disagreement is associated with personal animus, stress and futility, partly because of the many toxic issues involved, what the public wants at this point in time is to hear from all sides their arguments on the matter through verbal shorthand, so to speak, until a kernel of the truth emerges.
In politics, it is difficult to argue politely or dutifully. Guyanese enjoy verbal combats where the adversaries throw themselves into every battle as in this case where both sides feel convinced of their own ground. As a consequence, they engage in a bruising public war of words before the matter is settled to the satisfaction of one or the other.
Nowadays, in the context of Guyanese realpolitik, it has become increasingly difficult to argue without ‘biases’, such as the tendency to pick a side and stick to it rather than weighing evidence for different views dispassionately and avoiding differences being transformed into sullen resentment. In the midst of all this it has become the norm for one party to throw up a hypothesis while the other is to either knock it down or ‘kill it.’
In the meantime, as the controversy rages, let’s keep our eyes and ears on the current GOG/ AFC/ExxonMobil exchanges, looking out especially for what is obvious and what is not, bearing in mind; ‘more is said by what is not said than by what is said.’
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
