Contradictions and disingenuity are the established modus operandi of the ExxonMobil Guyana (EMGL) anointed AFC leader in the person of Nigel Hughes.
It would be recalled that at his party’s conference held earlier this year where he emerged as the elected leader, he committed to examining the mistakes of the AFC during their 2015-2020 stint in government, with a view to implicitly assume collective responsibility thereof. As an independent observer, this was the rational, ethical approach that one would expect any decent candidate contesting for the highest office of the land to pursue. Albeit not surprisingly, Nigel Hughes has back-peddled on that commitment.
The minimum qualities to be a national leader are (i) patriotism and (ii) inclusivity. Nigel Hughes has neither, not even pretextually as demonstrated hereunder.
Unapologetically, Nigel Hughes, in his capacity as the leader and presidential candidate of the AFC stated categorically that should his clients’ interests, 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 singular 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 the country’s national interest. Towards this end, the following are some notable examples.
The Skeldon Modernization Project Case: Booker Tate versus the State (Attorney representing Booker Tate against the State was Nigel Hughes): As is publicly known by now, the PPP/C Government had filed legal action against Booker Tate for the failed Skeldon project in their pre-2015 term.
The relationship between GuySuCo and Booker Tate deteriorated due to sub-standard performance by Booker Tate in their oversight role of the Skeldon Project. Consequently, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Nanda Gopaul, GuySuCo withheld payment of Booker Tate’s management fees, which eventually led to Booker Tate taking court action against GuySuCo for same to be settled. The decision to withhold payment was based on the Board’s discovery of numerous acts of inefficiencies, mismanagement, poor decision making, and major planning deficits and flaws in the construction of the factory.
Predicated on sound legal advice, GuySuCo filed a counterclaim against Booker Tate for alleged contractual breaches in relation to the Skeldon Project. The Affidavit filed in the High Court by GuySuCo detailed the alleged breaches, which can be summarized as follows:
Booker Tate was in breach of its obligations under clause 4 and 2 of Schedule A of the Agreement. Specific infractions included―
- Yield loss due to wrong choice of file layout
- Loss of sugar
- Untimely installation of drainage structure
- Bungled reconfiguration of ridge and furrow to broad beds
- Poor placement of bridges.
- Poor construction of all-weather road.
- Water supply structure
- Multiple design flaws of the factory
- Modification of plant equipment for design capacity
Losses due to Booker Tate Mismanagement of GuySuCo
The court proceedings began in October 2010. The Court’s ruling by a High Court Judge followed in February 2015. The Judge chose to rule only on Booker Tate’s case against GuySuCo. The Court, however, did not rule on the counter claim by GuySuCo. GuySuCo had sued for compensation for damages in the amount of $4.529 billion, owing to the breach of Booker Tate’s contractual arrangement in respect of their role in the Skeldon Project noted above. Considering the time value factor, when adjusted for inflation for the period 2005-2023, that sum has a present (2023) value of $7.693 billion.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, GuySuCo then filed an appeal with Guyana’s Appeal Court for that Court to consider its counter claim. In May 2015, the APNU-AFC formed a new government, and they withdrew GuySuCo’ s case against Booker Tate and shockingly paid them as per the initial court judgement. No responsible government would have done that. By so doing, the APNU+AFC Government jeopardized the cash starved entity from recovering vast sums of monies lost due to their improper execution as per their contractual terms.
With the APNU-AFC’s withdrawal of the court action by GuySuCo, Book Tate was relieved of any liability to the State in relation to the failure of the Skeldon Project. Effectively, APNU-AFC bailed out Book Tate at the expense of the sugar industry and the people of Guyana.
Notably, the attorney who represented Booker Tate in this case was none other than Nigel Hughes, and it was the AFC faction of the APNU+AFC government that held the portfolio for the agriculture sector.
Example 2:
In August 2024, a US firm, namely ConocoPhillips was seeking to enforce an arbitral award in Guyana against Venezuela over financial assets that the Venezuelan Government has in Guyana. In this regard, “reports are that the Guyana Government’s escrow account for the payment to Venezuela has a deposit of US$32.01 million under the PetroCaribe agreement” (Guyana Times, August, 15, 2024). However, the Government of Guyana, through the Attorney General filed an appeal against the enforcement of the said arbitral award considering the negative impact this could have on Guyana in light of the ongoing border controversy between the two countries. It may potentially be viewed as an act of aggression against Venezuela. In the premises, any sane minded person would agree that Guyana should not enforce the arbitral award at this point in time.
Of note, Nigel Hughes was/is the attorney representing the US firm against the national interest of the country in respect of this matter.
Deliberate Attempts at re-shaping the political demographics. The APNU+AFC’s primary political objective in government (2015-2020) was to materially re-shape the political demographics of the country to one that would guarantee their retention of political power. What was their strategy? The strategy in this respect manifested itself when the APNU+AFC disregarded its own recommendations by a Commission of Inquiry that they commissioned into the state of affairs of the sugar industry, to not close any sugar estates given the adverse socio-economic impact it would engender.
Interestingly, the 7,300 sugar workers who lost their jobs in that process was not a random number. It was a well calculated number by the political master minds. The 7,300 sugar workers translates to 7,300 households or families, with an average of 3 persons per household, which further translates to 21,900 persons who were directly, negatively impacted by that callous decision.
It is well established that the sugar belt constitute the core base of the PPP/C’s supporters, therefore, a loss of 21,900 votes for the PPP/C would have, in theory, guarantee a win for the APNU+AFC at the 2020 national election. The thinking was that they were hoping that with the devastation, the depression etc., that they had inflicted on those families, would have resulted in another wave of mass migration. Nevertheless, this strategy failed owing to the steadfast resilience of the people supported by the leadership of the PPP/C while in the opposition. Consequently, the APNU+AFC was left with no other choice but to attempt to rig the election in their favour, which also failed.
Conclusion
This was the combined track record of the APNU+AFC in government, which, if given another chance, shall be the order of the day. And, as evidently demonstrated herein, while Nigel Hughes pretends to be a patriot, his actions have proven and continue to prove otherwise. Furthermore, these are precisely the reasons why Nigel Hughes will never apologize because it is the only way that they believe, if given any chance in government again, that they could retain political power, vis-à-vis, doing whatever it takes to reshape the political demographics to their advantage. Even if it means destroying the livelihoods of more than half of the population, thereby creating the conditionalities for mass migration.