标签： Guyana

In a landmark ruling centered on governmental transparency and energy sector accountability, Guyana’s High Court has mandated retired Justice Charles Ramson, the country’s Commissioner of Information (COI), to resolve three long-pending freedom of information requests filed by prominent civil society activist and dual-qualified chartered accountant and attorney Christopher Ram by November 27, 2026. The ruling, delivered in a 38-page judgment by Justice Nicola Pierre, marks a critical rebuke of the COI’s years-long delay in addressing requests focused on ExxonMobil’s operations in Guyana’s oil sector and the COI’s own institutional reporting under the 2011 Access to Information Act.

Ram submitted three separate formal requests for information in March 2025, all of which Ramson failed to process after requiring Ram to first submit the requests to other relevant public authorities – a step Ram complied with, only to still receive no formal decision on his applications. Two of the three requests focus exclusively on transparency around the ExxonMobil-led oil consortium operating under Guyana’s 2016 Petroleum Agreement. The first asks for detailed records of the consortium’s tax payments made through the Ministry of Natural Resources, including specific documentation of total amounts paid, official tax assessment certificates, proof of compliance with Article 15.4 of the 2016 agreement, and data aligned with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) reporting standards. The second ExxonMobil-related request seeks financial data on the consortium’s annual revenue and spending between 2021 and 2025, as well as clarification on the accounting treatment of any revenues that were not recorded in Guyana’s national Consolidated Fund.

The third request, filed March 12, 2025, seeks institutional transparency from the COI’s own office, calling for all annual operational reports on the Access to Information Act submitted to Guyana’s National Assembly between 2015 and 2023, compliance reports submitted to the responsible minister between 2011 and 2023, full statistical breakdowns of all information requests processed under the act (including counts of requests received, granted, denied, and appealed) for the 2015–2023 period, and a list of all public authorities that submitted required compliance reports to the minister during that timeframe. Under Guyana’s Access to Information Act, the responsible minister is legally required to lay an annual operational report before the National Assembly no later than nine months after the close of each calendar year.

In her judgment, Justice Pierre firmly rejected the COI’s core arguments, including his claim that Ram was required to submit requests to other public authorities before applying to his office, and his assertion that his own office does not qualify as a public authority subject to information requests under the act. The judge clarified that the Access to Information Act does not impose any requirement for prior application to another agency as a precondition for processing requests under sections 16 to 18 of the law. She further confirmed that all records requested in the March 12 application qualify as official documents held by a public authority, making them legally compellable under the act.

Pierre also pushed back against the COI’s claim that fulfilling the request for his office’s records would amount to forcing him to “self-oversee” his own conduct. She emphasized that the COI’s statutory role is that of a central clearinghouse for processing information requests, not an oversight body for other agencies, and that the request merely seeks existing official records, not a review of the COI’s own actions. The judge also formally criticized the COI’s defensive legal approach during the proceedings, noting that his blanket denial of receiving most of Ram’s correspondence failed to meet the standards of candour required of public officials in judicial review cases – particularly in a case centered on freedom of information. Pierre found that the existing documentary evidence, including correspondence authored by the COI himself, clearly confirmed that the COI received all three of Ram’s valid, legally compliant requests, and that his requirement for Ram to first approach other agencies did not constitute a formal decision on the applications as required by law.

In her final orders, Pierre ruled that the COI’s inaction amounted to a de facto refusal of the March 12 request, and ordered him to process all three requests in full compliance with the Access to Information Act and the terms of her judgment within the 60-day window. She specified that if the COI grants access to any requested records, he must provide them in accordance with statutory procedures. If he determines that a requested document does not exist or cannot be located after a thorough search, he must provide Ram with formal written notice, explicit reasons for the denial, and clear information about Ram’s right to pursue further judicial review. Pierre declined to order the COI to provide reasons for a substantive refusal that he never formally issued, instead opting to enforce the statutory duty he had failed to carry out: processing and deciding on the pending requests.

In a recent enforcement crackdown on unregulated mining activity, Guyana’s Ministry of Natural Resources announced Monday night that two individuals suspected of illicit gold trading have been taken into custody at Tamakay Landing, located in the country’s Region Seven (Cuyuni/Mazaruni). The joint operation, carried out on September 28 by the enforcement division of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, not only netted the two suspects but also resulted in the seizure of 6 million Guyanese dollars, approximately two ounces of unlicensed gold, and an array of unspecified specialized trading equipment. As a direct consequence of the violations uncovered during the inspection, the retail gold shop operating out of Tamakay Landing in the Mazaruni mining district has had all its operational activities suspended pending further investigation. Ministry officials confirmed in an official statement that the site was found to be actively buying and selling gold without holding the mandatory government approvals and operating licenses required for participation in Guyana’s regulated gold sector. Following the arrest, the two suspects were transferred to local police custody for further processing and legal proceedings. In the statement, the Ministry emphasized that this latest enforcement action is just one component of its sustained, nationwide campaign to eliminate illegal mining and all associated illicit activities that undermine the regulated sector. Monitoring and enforcement operations will remain active across every mining district in the country, as authorities work to curb unregulated activity that deprives the nation of tax revenue and weakines regulatory oversight of the critical mining industry. The Ministry closed its statement by issuing a formal call to all industry stakeholders, from small-scale traders to large mining operators, to proactively verify that their operations fully comply with all existing national laws and mandatory licensing requirements governing Guyana’s mining sector, warning that additional enforcement actions will continue in the coming months.

A high-stakes contractual conflict over two major hospital construction projects in Guyana has reached the Court of Appeal, as Austrian healthcare infrastructure specialist VAMED Engineering GmbH moves to overturn a recent Full Court ruling that cleared the way for the Guyanese Ministry of Health to seize project sites and resume construction amid ongoing international arbitration.

At the heart of the dispute is a €45.3 million payment claim VAMED has brought against the Guyanese government, which the company says represents overdue payments for completed substantial works, contract variations, price indexation, additional on-site tasks and other legally binding contractual entitlements. Of that total, at least €19.5 million is tied to certified completed work on the two facilities: the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital (GPMH) on East Coast Demerara and the New Amsterdam Hospital Campus (NAHC). VAMED also notes that the government’s own independent engineering consultant has previously calculated Guyana’s outstanding debt to the firm at approximately €37.94 million.

The Full Court’s September 22, 2026 ruling overturned an earlier preservation order issued by trial judge Justice Renita Singh on August 6 that barred both parties from tampering with VAMED’s assets on the project sites. Under Justice Singh’s original order, the Ministry of Health was required to leave 52 shipping containers holding high-value equipment, as well as other construction assets including heavy cranes, power generators and building materials, undisturbed at the GPMH site. Only VAMED’s own security personnel were permitted to access the site for the sole purpose of securing the containers and equipment, while both parties were ordered to preserve all project documents, design plans and intellectual property related to the build.

Since the Full Court’s decision went into effect, VAMED claims Ministry of Health officials have already entered both project sites and begun disturbing the company’s property, including opening and dispersing the 52 containers that hold an estimated €32 million worth of equipment and materials. In a sworn affidavit submitted to the Court of Appeal, VAMED employee Aaron Heward Mills argues that the ongoing incursions are causing irreversible, ongoing harm to the firm’s assets. “Once the property is removed, dispersed or damaged, it cannot be restored to its original condition or location,” Mills wrote in the affidavit.

VAMED’s legal team, led by attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes, argues that the Full Court made multiple critical errors of law in overturning the original preservation orders. Hughes emphasized that the preservation orders issued by the trial judge were legally distinct from the conservatory orders Justice Singh had previously declined to grant, noting that the preservation measures were never intended as injunctions against the state, but rather as targeted protections to safeguard assets pending the outcome of arbitration. Hughes further argued that the Full Court incorrectly failed to distinguish between prohibited injunctive relief against the state — which is barred under Guyana’s State Liability and Proceedings Act — and court-ordered preservation measures, which fall under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and are explicitly authorized by the 2024 Arbitration Act. That statute grants Guyanese courts clear authority to issue interim protective measures to support ongoing arbitral proceedings, a protection the Full Court’s ruling has eliminated entirely, leaving VAMED with no safeguards for its assets ahead of the arbitral tribunal’s formation, the firm argues.

In upholding the government’s appeal of the trial judge’s order, the Full Court justified its ruling by finding that the original preservation orders conflicted with the trial judge’s own earlier findings that there was no urgent need for relief and that monetary damages would be a sufficient remedy for any harm VAMED suffered. The Full Court also ruled the orders lacked a valid statutory basis under the 2024 Arbitration Act and agreed with the Attorney General’s Chambers that the prohibition on injunctions against the state could not be bypassed by reclassifying restrictive conduct orders as preservation measures.

On the payment dispute, the Guyanese Ministry of Health has pushed back against VAMED’s claims, citing months of documented concerns about project delays, missed construction milestones, insufficient mobilization of labor and resources, and the contractor’s failure to maintain the work pace required to complete the hospitals on schedule. These issues have been the subject of extensive contractual correspondence between the two parties for months, the ministry notes.

VAMED’s current application before the Court of Appeal seeks both to overturn the Full Court’s ruling and to secure a stay of execution on the September 22 order that allowed the government to take over the sites.

In a development that has reshaped the political communications landscape in Guyana, the primary Facebook page that serves as the central digital hub for the country’s main opposition bloc We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) has been restored and is once again accessible to its more than 500,000 followers. The page, officially branded as Team Mohameds, belongs to opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed, who has been locked in a high-profile dispute over the page’s disappearance earlier this month.

The controversy dates back to September 3, 2026, when Mohamed was detained at Guyana’s Leonora Police Station, and law enforcement officials seized multiple mobile devices and a personal laptop from him. Shortly after this police interaction, the key opposition Facebook page went offline. Mohamed quickly placed blame on the ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC), claiming the governing party orchestrated the page’s removal to silence his political voice ahead of ongoing political mobilization efforts. As of Friday, neither the Guyana Police Force nor the PPPC-led government has issued any formal confirmation or denial of Mohamed’s allegations.

According to earlier statements from the opposition leader to Demerara Waves Online News, he spent weeks in direct communication with Meta, the parent company of Facebook, working to regain access to the platform that has functioned as a critical organizing and outreach tool for WIN since last year’s general and regional elections. The page has been particularly instrumental for Mohamed, who has used it repeatedly to publish a series of serious corruption allegations against sitting President Irfaan Ali and several top PPPC government ministers. All named officials have publicly and uniformly denied every claim leveled against them via the page.

In an update shared earlier this month, Mohamed confirmed that law enforcement had ultimately returned all of the seized electronic devices that were taken as part of a separate criminal probe. That investigation centers on claims that Mohamed and a second man operated an unauthorized drone over President Ali’s private residential property in Leonora, located on Guyana’s West Coast Demerara. The second individual involved in the case, a contract videographer, has already been formally charged with multiple violations of Guyana’s Civil Aviation Act, and law enforcement has retained two drones seized from him as evidence in the ongoing case.

During a town hall gathering with Guyanese diaspora members in Queens, New York on September 24, 2026, Guyanese President Irfaan Ali opened up about his long personal history in farming while making a pitch for diaspora investment in Guyana’s growing agricultural sector.

Addressing the crowd, Ali clarified that his connection to farming stretches back 10 years, pushing back against recent narratives that frame his agricultural holdings as a new, undeclared political conflict of interest. “The reality is, I’m a farmer; not now, not yesterday, not last month, not a year ago. Ten years ago,” he told the assembled community members.

The size of Ali’s farm along the Linden-Soesdyke Highway emerged as a major national political controversy more than a month earlier, in July 2026. The allegations were first raised by Azruddin Mohamed, a one-time close ally of Ali, leader of the opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, and a prominent figure in Guyana’s Islamic community. Mohamed first brought public attention to the holding, sparking a heated debate over asset disclosure. While Ali has stated the farm spans 60 acres, independent measurements using Google Earth Pro of the cleared forest area put the actual size at roughly 114.81 acres.

Ali has repeatedly pushed back against the criticism, noting that all of his personal assets have been properly declared to Guyana’s Integrity Commission, the national body tasked with oversight of public officials’ financial disclosures. He added that he has personally taken out loans to fund expansion of the farm, which produces cattle, fish, sheep, and a range of fruits and vegetables, reinvesting all generated revenues back into the operation.

The President also addressed broader tensions between his administration and the Mohamed family, who are currently fighting extradition to the United States to face federal criminal charges. Without naming Azruddin Mohamed directly, Ali emphasized that no personal or political connections would shield individuals accused of crimes from accountability. “You can be my best friend but if you do the crime, you have to do the time,” he stated. He also pushed back against criticism that his government acted improperly in supporting the U.S. extradition request and imposing domestic sanctions on the Mohamed family, questioning why the administration should be held responsible for upholding legal obligations.

The legal case against the Mohamed family dates back to June 2024, when the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned Nazar Mohamed and his son, the younger Mohamed, over allegations that they evaded more than $50 million in taxes owed to the Guyanese government through a large-scale gold smuggling operation that moved over 10,000 kilograms of gold out of the country. The pair are currently fighting extradition to Florida, where a federal grand jury has returned an 11-count indictment charging them with wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.

Since the extradition request was made public, the Mohameds have made a series of explosive claims about their long-standing ties to Ali’s ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC). They say they provided financial backing to the PPPC during the party’s time in opposition from 2015 to 2020, and have been supporters of the party dating back to the 1990s. The younger Mohamed has also publicly claimed that he provided armed security and bulletproof vehicles for Ali in the period leading up to his 2020 inauguration as president. Photographic evidence confirms the pair were in attendance at Ali’s swearing-in ceremony at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre after he took office.

Speaking to the Guyanese diaspora in New York, Ali doubled down on his position that past political support does not grant immunity from prosecution for criminal activity. “There are some people from the time they can’t get their way, we bad…. They believe they give the party some donation for election. You own the party, and you do whatever you want. and it can’t happen with the People’s Progressive Party,” he said.

As Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali participates in the 81st United Nations General Assembly debate in New York, he addressed a key unresolved national crisis during a town hall meeting with US-based Guyanese communities in Queens late Thursday night. More than two months after the devastating MV Barima ferry sinking off Guyana’s Essequibo Coast claimed an estimated 100 lives, the president has pushed back against growing opposition criticism of the government’s slow handling of recovery efforts, confirming that bidding for the vessel’s salvage operation is currently under technical review.

The tragedy, which unfolded on July 18, saw 179 passengers and crew members aboard the capsized ferry. Official records show 77 people were rescued alive from the Atlantic, while 72 remain unaccounted for, bringing the confirmed and presumed death toll to over 100. In the weeks following the disaster, the Guyanese government launched a public procurement process to select a qualified salvager, with a deadline for Expressions of Interest closing on August 14. Ultimately, nine firms submitted initial EOIs, and three bidders — Industrial Fabrications Inc. (InFab), BK International Inc, and Netherlands-headquartered KMS B.V — advanced to the formal bidding stage.

Last Saturday, opposition A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) parliamentarian Ganesh Mahipaul launched a scathing attack on the administration’s timeline. Thirty-seven days after the EOI window closed, Mahipaul said the government had failed to publicly name a contracted salvager or announce a clear mobilization date for the operation. He described the delay as inconsiderate, unacceptable, and argued that the current glacial pace of handling the tragedy amounts to inhumane treatment of the victims’ families. “The government cannot reduce the MV Barima tragedy to another file sitting on a desk somewhere in a Ministry. People died. The Government has a responsibility to demonstrate urgency in getting that vessel recovered,” Mahipaul stated.

Speaking directly to these accusations at the Queens town hall, President Ali rejected repeated claims that his government was deliberately dragging its feet to avoid a full investigation into the sinking. “We are not hiding from salvaging. There is a process, and that process is ongoing. We are not hiding from investigation,” he told attendees. The president added that the decision to run a full public tendering process was intentional, designed to avoid any allegations that he would select a firm with perceived ties to his personal associates.

Public records from Guyana’s National Procurement and Tender Administration (NPTAB) outline the details of the three competing bids. BK International has submitted the lowest offer at US$1,034,000, while InFab has proposed to carry out the salvage for US$1,895,000. KMS B.V, the highest bidder, has quoted a price of US$2,035,100 to recover the vessel, which rests roughly 10 miles off Devonshire Castle village on the Essequibo Coast. KMS B.V. has prior experience in large-scale marine recovery in Guyana, through its parent company Koole Contractors, which was hired five years ago for a GYD$787.6 million project to clear sunken vessels from the Demerara River and sections of Guyana’s coast to improve marine safety. Local firm InFab, meanwhile, has a history of emergency infrastructure work, including extensive emergency repairs to the now-decommissioned floating Demerara Harbour Bridge.

A core requirement of the salvage operation outlined in the EOI terms is that the selected contractor must preserve all forensic evidence from the wreck, to support the upcoming official Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the causes of the disaster. As of late September, the CoI has not yet begun public hearings. Separately, three individuals facing criminal charges connected to the sinking — the ferry’s captain, first mate, and the Transport and Harbours Department’s goods superintendent — are currently seeking to have their murder charges thrown out. Their legal teams argue that authorities abused legal process by bringing criminal charges before completing a mandatory marine accident investigation under the Guyana Shipping Act.