IN a letter published in the Thursday, January 15, 2026 edition of the Stabroek News, Mr GHK Lall asserts that the audited financial statements of the Guyana Gold Board (GGB) are publicly available and that these reports do not insinuate corruption, irregularities, or questionable practices.
That assertion is demonstrably incorrect and contradicted by the very audit reports to which he refers.
In September 2023, this author conducted a detailed review of the audited financial statements and auditors’ management letters of the Guyana Gold Board covering the period of Mr Lall’s chairmanship (2017–2019).
That review was published and remains in the public domain (see: Guyana Chronicle, 7 September 2023 — https://guyanachronicle.com/2023/09/07/ghk-lall-and-the-guyana-gold-board/).
Contrary to Mr Lall’s claim of institutional propriety, the audit reports document multiple and repeated breaches of the Procurement Act, failures in internal controls, and financial practices that auditors themselves flagged as irregular, unjustified, or non-compliant.
Among the more serious audit findings are the following:
First, the 2017 audit revealed that non-current assets valued at $21.18 million were disposed of without approval from the Board of Directors, reflecting a breakdown of internal controls and non-compliance with Ministry of Finance procedures.
Second, in 2018, auditors found that nine gold dealers’ licences were approved in the absence of documented standard operating procedures, without evidence of board-conducted interviews, and in most cases without the legally required “no objection” from the Minister of Natural Resources.
Third, significant capital acquisitions in 2018—including generators, CCTV systems, electrical works, and a mercury abatement system—were either sole-sourced without competitive quotations or executed in the complete absence of contractual agreements. Auditors specifically noted that this exposed the board to financial and legal risk and undermined accountability.
Fourth, in 2019, auditors cited multiple procurement breaches, including the award of major contracts without demonstrable adherence to procurement procedures, the disqualification of bids without documented justification (including bids significantly below the engineer’s estimate), and advance payments made without recovery or evidence of corresponding benefit.
Particularly troubling was the award of a US$288,000 (approximately G$60 million) contract to Axis Guyana Inc for a regulatory compliance system.
Auditors concluded that the Guyana Gold Board did not receive value for money, that procurement procedures were not complied with, and that the contract contained provisions inconsistent with Guyana’s tax laws.
The auditors further recorded that the then Chairman of the Board insisted that the project proceed despite internal objections.
These findings are not speculative, political, or editorial in nature. They are verbatim observations and conclusions contained in the auditors’ reports themselves.
Accordingly, the suggestion that the audited financial statements of the Guyana Gold Board do not raise questions of irregularities or questionable practices is untenable. The documentary evidence, already published and publicly accessible, establishes the opposite.
Public debate benefits from transparency and accuracy. It does not benefit from the selective invocation of audit reports while ignoring their substantive findings.