In today’s Stabroek News, Mr. Panday emphatically denied ever being dismissed from GuySuCo. However, contrary to his claim, when I undertook a detailed review of the Skeldon fiasco, I came across his dismissal letter.
In the course of my research, I examined volumes of documents related to the Skeldon project, including court filings in the case brought by the PPP/C government against Booker Tate for contractual breaches. My inquiry extended beyond paper trails. I interviewed key stakeholders, including the former Chairman of GuySuCo under whose authority Mr. Panday was summarily dismissed.
The record shows that after Mr. Panday received his dismissal letter, he appealed for his pension, to which he was eligible. The Board, acting out of sympathy, instructed him to tender a resignation so that he could access his pension benefits. This was a humane accommodation, but it did not erase the blemishes on his employment record, which remain evident in the documents (including the dismissal letter referenced and attached herein).
It should be noted that when an executive is dismissed or instructed to resign (a form of dismissal thereby allowing the concerned party to part ways with minimal reputational damage to his/her career), it is not for a single act. It is usually underpinned by an accumulation of breaches in professional conduct etc., that induced severe harm and damaging consequences to the organization.
That said, my research into the Skeldon project was voluntary, born out of a genuine desire to understand the case and its implications. For decades, one man—the former President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo—has borne the brunt of blame for Skeldon’s failure. Yet, like a true leader, Dr. Jagdeo never sought to deflect responsibility onto others. He carried it himself and refrained from publicly naming the real culprits—until only recently, when for the first time last year after two decades, he explained the role played by Booker Tate in the project’s downfall.
To me, this is the hallmark of genuine leadership: accepting responsibility in the face of adversity. But Dr. Jagdeo did not merely stop at acceptance; he acted. His government filed a case against Booker Tate over the Skeldon project, seeking in excess of $4 billion in damages for contractual failures.
However, by the time the appeal reached the court, the APNU+AFC coalition had taken office in 2015. At that point, Booker Tate’s attorney, Nigel Hughes—who was then Chairman of the same political party that had just assumed government—stepped in. In what was a glaring conflict of interest, he withdrew the appeal. The PPP/C government’s claim was abandoned, and Booker Tate was released from all liability.
The result was catastrophic for Guyana. A professional firm contracted to deliver on a project of national importance walked away without consequence. Billions of dollars in damages that could have been recovered for the people of this country vanished because of political compromise. And yet, the blame for Skeldon continues to be unfairly pinned on one man, while those truly responsible—the contractors who failed and those who shielded them—have gone unscathed.
The truth is clear: Guyana was betrayed, not by political interference in the Skeldon project, but by failures in management and, later, by the abandonment of justice at the hands of those who placed political interests above the nation’s.
It is against this backdrop that I find Mr. Panday’s recent denial disingenuous. The record, both documentary and testimonial, contradicts his narrative. More than that, Mr. Panday was fortunate to have been rehired not once, but twice, after his 2010 dismissal under the Presidency of Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo. President Ramotar reinstated him following appeals on his behalf by Mr. Komal Chand, and once again, under President Ali, he was brought back for a third time. Yet, despite these repeated opportunities, he seemingly never learned from past failings. Instead, he continues to absolve himself of responsibility and shifts the blame onto politicians. In reality, it is poor management that has undermined GuySuCo and driven it into its current state of affairs. There’s a special classification for this type of behavior exemplified by Mr. Panday. It’s called “ungratefulness”.
My case study revealed a crucial truth: there was never political interference in the Skeldon project. A professional firm with decades of global expertise—Booker Tate—was hired to perform a professional job. The government abided by Booker Tate’s recommendations. The problem did not lie in political direction, but in management failures within GuySuCo itself.
The evidence is clear. The documents, the testimonies, and the sequence of events tell a very different story than the one Mr. Panday now insists upon.
