Christopher Ram’s mischaracterisation of govt’s investment invitation

In his latest commentary, Mr. Christopher Ram, concludes that the government’s invitation for investment in the Guyana Ammonia and Urea Plant Inc. (GAUP) and the gas bottling initiative is “illegal.”
This conclusion is not merely premature; it is analytically hollow and fundamentally misinterprets the stages of capital mobilisation.
Mr. Ram’s primary failure lies in his mischaracterisation of the transaction’s current stage. The government has issued an Expression of Interest (EOI). By definition, an EOI is a preliminary market-sounding exercise.
It does not constitute a prospectus, it does not create enforceable investor rights, and it certainly does not amount to the “issuance” or “offering” of securities as defined by the Securities Industry Act (SIA).
Mr. Ram proceeds as though a completed securities offering already exists, and on that basis, pronounces illegality. One cannot establish a breach of the SIA in a vacuum where there is no defined financial instrument, no formal subscription terms, and no executed offering structure. To do so is a fundamental methodological error.
Mr. Ram invokes the “50-investor threshold” to argue that these entities are automatically public companies. This argument is technically incomplete. Statutory thresholds only become operative when there are an issued security and an established beneficial ownership structure.
At present, there is neither. Applying the SIA at this stage isn’t an application of law; it is a speculative extrapolation of a structure that does not yet exist.
The critique regarding NICIL and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) is equally flawed.
1. NICIL is a state-owned entity subject to the Procurement Act. Any capital mobilisation it undertakes is governed by that very Act.
2. NPTAB’s involvement reflects the standard operation of the existing legal framework where transactions of this scale fall within its remit.
To suggest that NPTAB’s involvement is an “expansion of its function” is to ignore the statutory reality that governs public procurement for state-owned companies.
Perhaps the most telling flaw in Mr. Ram’s analysis is the attempt to apply final statutory conclusions to a structure that is not yet constituted. At this stage, the legal form of the entities is not finalised, and the transaction architecture is not complete.
Legal obligations arise from executed transactions, not from preliminary discovery phases. Pronouncing illegality now is methodologically unsound and lacks evidentiary basis.
This approach reflects a broader, recurring pattern in Mr. Ram’s commentaries: a reliance on partial readings of statutes and the drawing of conclusions long before the evidentiary threshold is met. This is not analytical rigour; it is conjecture presented as definitive conclusion.
The government’s invitation is a preliminary capital mobilisation exercise, not a completed securities offering. The legal test of compliance, whether under the SIA or the Companies Act, can only be applied once the investment structure is designed and investor rights are formalised.
Mr. Ram’s attempt to declare the initiative “illegal” fails that test. In the absence of a demonstrable breach of law, his claim is not only premature, it is fundamentally untenable.