An invitation to scandal

Jan 11, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- The Vice President, with his characteristic mix of defensiveness, recently offered a glimpse into the government’s policy—or lack thereof—regarding conflicts of interest among its Ministers. When questioned, he revealed that one individual, whose business ventures intersect with the oil and gas sector, was asked to delink from that business as a condition for joining the Cabinet.

Jagdeo did not state what he meant by de-link. But generally, this should involve placing the business in a blind trust. Has this been done? The records at the Court should be able to confirm this.

Jagdeo then pivoted to an argument that Ministers have a right to hold shares or interests in businesses, so long as these are dutifully declared to the Integrity Commission and do not use their influence to benefit their companies. But this half-hearted acknowledgment of potential conflicts of interest only underscores the deeper negligence and casualness at play. The government has failed to codify binding rules on conflicts of interest for its Ministers and senior officials.

The absence of a comprehensive Code of Conduct governing conflicts of interest is not merely an oversight. It is an abdication of responsibility. In a nation where resource wealth and foreign investments are reshaping the economy, the opportunities for personal enrichment at the public’s expense are as plentiful as they are pernicious.

Ministers and senior officials wield considerable influence over policy and project approvals. The notion that mere “declaration” of interests suffices to mitigate conflicts is as naïve as it is disingenuous. Declarations are, at best, a starting point. Without explicit rules that bar Ministers from decision-making on matters where they have a direct or indirect interest, the door is left wide open for abuse, intentional or otherwise.

One might reasonably ask why such rules do not already exist. After all, the potential for conflicts of interest is hardly a new phenomenon.

The absence of a robust Code of Conduct benefits those who prefer the opacity of the current system. Why constrain one’s ability to leverage public office for private gain when the status quo allows for plausible deniability?

The Vice President’s assertion that Ministers should not “use their influence” to benefit companies in which they have an interest is laughable in its vagueness. Influence is not a tangible commodity that can be easily delineated. It is wielded in closed-door meetings, in subtle nudges to subordinates, and in the framing of policy discussions.

A Minister need not sign an official document or issue a direct order to shape outcomes in ways that favour their interests. The mere presence of a financial stake—be it shares, partnerships, or other benefits—creates an inherent bias, conscious or unconscious. To believe otherwise is to ignore decades of evidence from around the world, where unchecked conflicts of interest have led to corruption, inefficiency, and public disillusionment.

What, then, should a proper Code of Conduct entail? At a minimum, it must include clear provisions requiring Ministers and senior officials to recuse themselves from any decision-making process that could affect a company in which they hold shares or other beneficial interests. The principle here is simple: no one should be a judge in their own cause.

Beyond recusal, there must be restrictions on Ministers owning shares in companies that are likely to have dealings with the government. Where such ownership is unavoidable, these shares should be placed in a blind trust—managed independently, without the Minister’s knowledge or input. In fact, any business owned by the Minister should be placed in a blind trust.

Guyana’s burgeoning oil and gas sector has introduced a level of wealth and complexity that the nation is ill-prepared to manage. The stakes are enormous, not just for the companies involved but for the nation as a whole. Every decision—from production-sharing agreements to environmental regulations—carries the potential to shape Guyana’s future for generations. Yet, these decisions are being made in a context where the rules governing conflicts of interest are either weak or nonexistent.

The irony is that codifying these rules would not only benefit the public but also the government itself. A well-defined Code of Conduct would provide clarity and protection for Ministers who might otherwise find themselves accused of impropriety, even where none exists. It would bolster public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the nation’s resources responsibly. And it would send a clear signal to investors that Guyana is committed to high standards of governance and accountability.

Instead, we are left with a muddled and inconsistent approach, where the rules appear to depend on the whims of those in power. This is not governance; it is improvisation. And it is a dangerous game to play in a nation where the stakes are so high.

The Vice President’s comments, rather than reassuring the public, have exposed the inadequacy of the current system. They have highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive, enforceable Code of Conduct that addresses not just conflicts of interest but the broader ethical standards expected of those in public office. Anything less is an invitation to scandal.

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

(An invitation to scandal)       

---

• environmental regulations, Integrity Commission, new phenomenon, senior officials

---