–rejects WIN leader’s attempt to distort historical reality of PPP/C’s investments, commitments
FINANCIAL Analyst Joel Bhagwandin has issued an unreserved defence of the government’s delivery of direct cash transfers and overall social support to Guyanese.
He argued that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has, for more than a decade, maintained a robust and institutionalised set of social-relief programmes that long predate the country’s oil wealth.
His statement comes as a sharp rebuttal to recent criticism from We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party leader and United States-sanctioned businessman, Azruddin Mohamed, whom Bhagwandin accused of launching “one of the lowest political attacks directed at President, Dr Irfaan Ali about cash grants.”
In his commentary, Bhagwandin rejected the WIN leader’s attempt to draw parallels between Guyana and oil-rich Middle Eastern states that provide direct cash transfers to citizens. According to him, the businessman’s selective use of foreign examples reveals a deeper contradiction.
In a pre-recorded, scripted statement on his page, the WIN leader referenced Middle Eastern countries that pay their citizens direct cash transfers.
Bhagwandin noted that Mohamed seemed far more familiar with the affairs of Middle Eastern countries than with the fiscal-management practices and policies implemented by the PPP/C government in Guyana.
He suggested that the businessman “may not be aware” of Guyana’s track record “because he was busy engaged in alleged illicit trading of gold, for which he is now the subject of Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions and having been indicted in a U.S. Court of law.”
Against this backdrop, Bhagwandin sought to clarify what he described as a long-standing, well-documented commitment to direct cash support for households.
“Guyana, under the PPP/C government, has been transferring various forms of direct cash transfers and relief to Guyanese households long before crude oil and gas was [sic] discovered,” he stated.
To make that point clear, he outlined a series of policies, which he framed as concrete forms of direct financial assistance.
Foremost among these was the Mortgage Interest Relief (MIR) programme introduced in 2013. The scheme, which applies to home loans up to $30 million, effectively reduces the interest burden on borrowers. Bhagwandin added that the annual interest on a loan of up to $30 million amounts to roughly $904,000, which totals about $22.6 million over a 25-year repayment period.
He added that for a low-income loan of up to $10 million, the annual interest is about $300,000, or approximately $7.5 million over the same 25-year term.
He emph
asised that “This is a form of direct cash transfer to the citizens.”
Another major initiative cited was the “Because We Care” cash grant, first launched in 2014, then discontinued during the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) administration, and reinstated by the PPP/C in 2021.
The programme, which originally offered $10,000 per child, has since grown to $50,000 plus a $5,000 uniform allowance. Bhagwandin made the point sharply: “This is a form of direct cash transfer to the citizens.”
He went on to describe the government’s actions regarding tertiary and secondary education as further examples of indirect but significant financial support.
“Prior to 2015,” he recalled, “under PPP/C government, Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) fees were partially subsidised. In 2025, the PPP/C government raised this subsidy to full coverage for eight subjects per child.”
He stated plainly that “this is another form of direct transfer to the citizens.”
Additionally, the long-standing public assistance programme, the write-off of University of Guyana student loan debt, and the Guyana Online Academy of Learning (GOAL) scholarships transitioning into free university education all fit within what Bhagwandin characterised as the government’s broad “institutionalised” commitment to supporting households.
Each measure, he stressed, represented “a form of direct cash transfer” or, in the case of education subsidies, “other forms of direct cash transfers to citizens.”
In terms of more recent measures, Bhagwandin highlighted the newborn cash grant of $100,000 introduced in 2025, noting again: “This is another form of direct cash transfer to the citizens.”
He also included the government’s decision, when global energy prices skyrocketed following the COVID-19 pandemic, to intervene in electricity costs.
“When oil prices doubled in the post-COVID period,” he recalled, “the PPP/C government subsidised the increased cost to the Guyana Power and Light (GPL), which is over $20 billion to keep electricity prices to the consumer constant.
REVERSAL OF TAXES
Bhagwandin then shifted his focus to tax policy, highlighting the reversal of more than 200 taxes implemented by the APNU+AFC administration. He argued that when the PPP/C government rolled back these taxes in 2020, the effect was equivalent to direct cash transfers to citizens valued at more than $90 billion annually.
Likewise, the government’s decision to reduce the excise tax on fuel imports from 50 per cent to zero percent was, to him, another significant form of household support, “valued at over $60 billion annually.”
Evaluated collectively, Bhagwandin argued that these measures represent an enormous, ongoing investment in public welfare.
“These are just few to mention,” he said, adding: “and if we are to quantify these measures as they currently stand, these would amount to upwards of $500 billion annually, in direct cash transfers to Guyanese households.”
Turning to the more recent promise of an annual direct cash grant, which the government introduced as a one-off programme in 2024, Bhagwandin insisted that the PPP/C remains committed to fulfilling its campaign promise.
Bhagwandin said: “The one-off cash grant which the PPP/C government introduced in 2024, that they promised will become an annual transfer in their campaign and 2025-2030 manifesto, be assured that it will become an annual transfer in addition to all of the above.”
He said that these commitments must follow the budget cycle, emphasising that “those funds would have to be appropriated in the budget, and the government is currently pre-occupied with 2026 budget preparation.”
Bhagwandin contrasted this responsible approach with what he described as the WIN leader’s disregard for legal and fiscal norms.
According to Bhagwandin, this political figure “Not accustomed to compliance with the law, and therefore is completely unaware and ignorant of the fiscal laws, fiscal management and public accountability procedures and practices.”
PERSONAL MOTIVES
Bhagwandin even suggested that the businessman’s push for immediate political action may stem not from public interest, but personal motives.
He said: “Or perhaps, he is more anxious for another sitting of the National Assembly, not because he cares about the people, but his own self-serving motive designed to escape the consequences of the OFAC sanctions.”
Bhagwandin reiterated what he viewed as the central truth of the debate: that Guyana’s social-support structure is not temporary, experimental, or dependent solely on oil.
Rather, he said, “Guyana’s approach to direct cash transfers is robust, institutionalised, and predates oil revenues.”
Measuring all programmes collectively, he concluded that “the PPP/C government has implemented numerous measures benefitting households, amounting to over $500 billion annually.”
The criticisms from Mohamed, he argued, “are baseless and reflect a lack of understanding of established fiscal policies and accountability procedures.”