Presidential Adviser, Dr. Randy Persaud posed a series of questions soliciting answers from the ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) backed presidential candidate of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Nigel Hughes. The EMGL presidential hopeful acknowledged the questions posed and sought to provide some answers. Having reviewed his responses, some of which were disingenuous on his (Nigel Hughes) part, I am compelled to address his responses therefor.
- Election Delays Post-No Confidence Vote and the 33 vs.32 Majority Argument.
“The delays following the No–Confidence Motion were the subject of significant legal and procedural interpretation. The matter was ultimately resolved by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). As a society, we must recognize the challenges of unprecedented legal issues…The interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding a majority was a point of legal contention. And, in fact, this was not a question of simple mathematics, but an argument about what constitutes a majority in the context of an unprecedented constitutional impasse. As a nation governed by laws, the court’s ruling must stand as the final arbiter. The issue of 33 v 32 was first raised by President Donald Ramotar when he solicited and received an opinion from Senior Counsel indicating that 33 was not the majority. Upon demitting office this opinion was left as part of the official record and my repetition of it was merely the repetition of an earlier opinion from President Ramotar’s presidential records…” (Nigel Hughes).
Bhagwandin’s Commentary
Nigel Hughes has been on EMGL’s payroll since 2015 and he remains on EMGL’s payroll to date, although he is now the presidential candidate of a political party. In hindsight, the 33 vs 32 argument was an orchestration designed by no one other than Hughes himself with the primary objective to delay the holding of the national election, whilst allowing the APNU+AFC government to remain in office, albeit unconstitutionally, for their full five-year term, and more so, bought sufficient time for EMGL so that they could quickly move to production (first oil) ahead of the election. This was cleverly calculated and executed on the part of Nigel Hughes in favour of his client, EMGL. In so doing, the 2016 Petroleum Agreement was locked in, in contemplation of a change in government, and effectively complicating any prospects or desire to renegotiate that contract.
With regards to his insinuation that former President Donald Ramotar solicited an opinion from Senior Council indicating that 33 was not the majority, this was a total fabrication by Nigel Hughes. The fact of the matter is that President Ramotar never solicited any legal opinion from Senior Council. It was an unsolicited opinion that he received from a lawyer by the name of Fraser, which he immediately rejected. The only legal advice that President Ramotar solicited and acted upon was from the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, who advised to prorogue parliament and call a snap election, which he did.
- Allegations of Elections Rigging.
“Allegations regarding the 2020 elections remain highly contentious with both sides making claims of infractions. While not being personally involved with whatever transpired, I await the Court’s rulings on these matters and will respond accordingly. It is critical to rely on due process and independent investigations for clarity. It is for that reason that the courts and not public sentiment are addressing the issue…” (Nigel Hughes).
Bhagwandin’s Commentary
Nigel Hughes knows full-well that there is unlikely to be a court ruling on the 2020 election before the next national election, which is due 2025. By that time, it will become an academic exercise. Lest we forget, the PPP/C had filed an election petition in 2015, which was never touched in the court system to this day. It is this precedent in mind, that I assert the same faith will be meted out to the 2020 election case.
Notwithstanding, the evidence on the failed attempts to rig the 2020 election by the APNU+AFC were played out transparently on national television and witnessed by the entire world in broad daylight. It was the most transparent attempt recorded in history to rig a national election. Then, there was the International Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the 2020 election fiasco, conveniently ignored by Mr. Hughes. In fact, Mr. Hughes was/is the attorney who represented the election riggers at the COI, as well as in the court matter; therefore, his position on this matter is not surprising.
- Layoffs of Sugar and Bauxite Workers.
“The challenges faced by the sugar and bauxite industries stem from decades of structural inefficiencies. While decisions were made to address sustainability, they did cause real pain to families, and I acknowledge that there may have been better ways to deal with the issue. What is critical is that we acknowledge that the Sugar Industry in Guyana as it is currently run is unsustainable and must be drastically reformed if it is to serve us as a nation. Bauxite extraction can only benefit us if we move on to value-added production…” (Nigel Hughes).
Under the David Granger led APNU+AFC administration, the AFC faction had control over the sugar industry, vis-à-vis, the minister with responsibility for that sector was from the AFC. A Commission of Inquiry was commissioned to look into the affairs of the sugar industry, headed by Dr. Clive Thomas, which cost the taxpayers over $50 million for three months of work. Notably, the COI never recommended the closure of any estates, yet the decisions of the APNU+AFC government thereof, completely departed from the recommendations of their own COI.
- 200 Taxes Allegation and ‘Because We Care Cash Grant’.
“The adjustments to the tax regime under APNU-AFC were part of broader fiscal policies. That administration did not have the benefit of the vast oil wealth we currently enjoy and one would have thought that there would have been more done to alleviate the strains under which our most vulnerable live, by the current administration…Decisions about the cash grant were taken within the broader framework of fiscal management…” (Nigel Hughes).
Bhagwandin’s Commentary
The APNU+AFC’s so-called reorientation of the “broader fiscal framework” was one that departed from a sustainable expansionary posture under the PPP/C Administration, to an unsustainable, partially contractionary fiscal framework. This, in turn, would have propelled the economy on a path to bankruptcy in the shortest possible timeframe, engendering far-reaching unprecedented social and economic crises had they remained in government, despite impending oil resources.
In 1992, the PPP/C Government inherited a bankrupt economy with a debt-to-GDP of 900%; 89.7% inflation; prime lending rate of 37.5%; the exchange rate devalued from G$4.25/US$1 in 1985, to G$200/US$1 by 2004; in 1990, the net international reserves was in a deficit position of US$103 million, which moved to a positive position of US$15 million in 1992; and the government deposit account balances were nil, practically zero funds in the bank.
On the contrary, in 2015, the APNU+AFC government inherited a financially healthy economy, whereby the debt-to-GDP ratio was down to 40% from 900% in 1992; the inflation rate was down to 1.2% from nearly 90% in 1992; the prime lending rate was down to 11% from nearly 40% in 1992; exchange rate stabilized between G$208.5/US$1 and G$212/US$1; the net international reserve stood at US$652 million, up from US$15 million in 1992; and the government deposit accounts in the banking sector held just over $120 billion liquid cash.
Interestingly, in 21 years (pre-oil era:1993-2014), the PPP/C government spent a total of $1.9 trillion, or an average of $91 billion annually. In contrast, the APNU+AFC government spent $1.16 trillion in just 4 years (2015-2019), or an average of $290 billion annually. In other words, the APNU+AFC government spent 3 times more than the PPP/C government during their tenure. When viewed from this perspective, it is quite ironic that the AFC leader intimated that there was fiscal constraints, which necessitated a reorientation of the budget, inter alia, increasing the tax burden imposed upon individuals and firms coupled with budget cuts on the capital side, allowing them to spend 3 times more on average than their predecessors. Quite an irony! Not to mention, all of this was in the pre-oil era, that’s double irony!
Furthermore, under the PPP/C government, recurrent expenditure accounted for an average of 67% of total expenditure, whereas capital expenditure accounted for an average of 33% of the total expenditure. In contrast, the APNU+AFC’s recurrent expenditure accounted for an average of 78% of the total budget and capital expenditure accounted for 22% of the total expenditure. This means that the APNU+AFC slashed the allocation to capital expenditure, which are expenditures allocated toward building out the productive sectors of the economy, and increased the budget allocation to unproductive, unsustainable spending, which was a recipe for disaster.
Consequently, in total for that period (2015-2019), the APNU+AFC expended in excess of $123 billion more on recurrent expenditure in contrast to the PPP/C’s fiscal composition of their budget (i.e., the difference between the PPP/C’s 67% recurrent expenditure of total expenditure vs. the APNU+AFC’s 78% of the total budget). The derivation of this outturn was attributed largely to the APNU+AFC’s fiscal mismanagement, amounting to fiscal recklessness, albeit an understatement.
- Conflict of Interest and EMGL.
“The relationship between my law firm and ExxonMobil is a professional one, governed by ethical standards. As a leader, I would ensure a firewall between personal interests and public duties, prioritizing national interest unequivocally. Legislative frameworks can further institutionalize such safeguards” (Nigel Hughes).
EMGL’s anti-corruption policy as well as certain US laws, EMGL, a multinational US company is prohibited from financing political candidates or parties in any form whatsoever, in other countries other than in the United States. EMGL has denied that it is in violation of any such law or policy and has denied the existence of a conflict of interest. Notwithstanding, their policy and the US law is clear in relation to the financing of foreign political candidates and parties.
Unapologetically, barefacedly, shamelessly, brazenly, and in no uncertain terms, Nigel Hughes, in his capacity as the leader and presidential candidate of the AFC stated categorically that should his clients’ interests be, in this case, EMGL’s interests’ conflict with the national interest, that his client’s interests shall prevail [at all times]. Credit to him, on this singularly fundamental issue of conflict of interest, he has been brutally honest! Perhaps, it is the only thing that he has been callously honest about in his entire political career. Moreover, he has an extraordinarily well established, indisputable, and independently verifiable track record of several legal cases and instances in which he has represented his clients’ interests, successfully in most case examples, against Guyana’s national interest. Thus, while he pretends to be a patriot, his actions have proven and continue to prove otherwise.
(In a separate essay, I shall address these other issues frontally as I have exhausted the word limit).