Specious arguments are being made

Jul 02, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – A silly debate has emerged about whether the newly-elected Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC) is in a conflict of interest because ExxonMobil is client of his firm. Some persons have sought disingenuously to import the definition of the politician being a politically-exposed person to claim that the new Leader of the AFC is in a conflict of interest.

This is an absurd conflation or relationship. A person is not necessarily in a conflict of interest by virtue of being a politically-exposed person. Every Minister of the government is considered as being a politically exposed person but they are not necessarily in a conflict of interest by virtue of being politically-exposed persons.

It is the specific situation that dictates whether a person is in a conflict of interest. The Leader of the AFC has pointed out that Exxon is a client of his firm. Thus, when it comes to matters and decisions concerning Exxon, it is clear that the Leader of the AFC will find himself in a conflict of interest. But there is a way out of this: by excusing himself or by not participating in the decision concerning the oil company.

Many years ago, it was reported that a matter concerning the friend of a former President had come before Cabinet. The matter concerned the privatization of a state enterprise. It was known that the President and the person to whom the asset was being sold were friend. The then President said that he excused himself from the deliberations. If he did so, it would have been because he recognized that he would have been in a conflict of interest in him participating in a decision that involved the interests of his friend.

In other words, it is specific situation that arises that places someone in a conflict of interest. Not by virtue of the person being a politically-exposed person or being known to the person.

It does seem however that we are in the season of fig leaf politics in which all manner of specious arguments are being used as ammunition against political rivals.

The AFC leader does not hold a government office as yet. As such, at that level he is not in any potential conflict of interest. But if he assumes a position in parliament, he could find himself in a potential conflict of interest if he attempts to speak about or to issues involving ExxonMobil.

The same principle applies in relation to his party’s position on issues that involve his client. In order not to be in a conflict of interest, he would be required to recuse himself from any discussion, within his party, that relate to the interests of the oil companies.

This does place him at a major handicap. The oil industry is the major economic sector in Guyana and is the main engine of economic growth. For any leader not to be able to be involved in either his party’s or government’s position on this sector, because of an existing business relationship, is a handicap and one which the delegates should have considered when nominating candidates for leadership of the AFC.

But the deal is done and what one expects now is ethical conduct in the manner in which potential and actual conflicts of interest are dealt with. There are laid down rules which apply, including as mentioned before, recusing oneself from consideration of matters which involve, both directly and indirectly, a client.

The government is no paragon of virtue when it comes to conflicts of interest. There was a glaring instance which surfaced recently and which was publicized in the press. The matter even formed part of arguments in court, except that the argument should have been made after the actual conflict of interest situation arose rather than before.

In another case, a person was found to be in a conflict of interest. It was ruled by the Court that the person should have recused himself from the matter.

A conflict of interest is inherently situational and occurs at a particular point in time. It is not a static or perpetual state but rather a condition that arises under specific circumstances where personal interests could or do potentially interfere with professional duties or decisions.

A potential conflict of interest exists when there is a possibility that an individual’s personal interests could interfere with their professional or political responsibilities in the future. Potential conflicts of interest are based on hypothetical situations where a conflict might arise but has not yet materialized.

On the other hand, an actual conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s personal interests directly interfere with their professional or political duties, impacting their objectivity or decision-making. The conflict is present and affects the individual’s professional or political responsibilities at a specific point in time.

It is important to separate the arguments which have been speciously made recently. By being elected as a leader of a political party, the elected person becomes a politically-exposed person. But this fact in itself does not automatically place the individual in a conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• arguments, conflict, definition, Peeping Tom, Specious

---