Why no one expects an investigation

Dec 29, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – When the subject is whether any government, particularly the current one, would ever investigate allegations of corruption involving high officialdom, the public has little expectations.

A foreign news agency once made serious allegations touching on high officialdom. The reaction?  Dismissed. No investigation. No inquiry. The public watched this with the weary familiarity of people who know exactly how the matter would end.

This reluctance to investigate those at the top is not a quirk of one administration. It is a national tradition. Guyanese governments, regardless of party, have perfected the art of investigating corruption in a way that never inconveniences anyone important. There is lots of talk about transparency, followed by little or no concrete action.

But it was not always this way. Once upon a time there were moments when allegations against top political officials were investigated. Under Forbes Burnham, an Ombudsman’s report pronounced upon allegations concerning the diversion of materials from a sea defence project. Burnham acted on the findings. There were consequences. The state, at least briefly, appeared to care. Of course, the action was widely seen as selective. Some were disciplined; others emerged mysteriously untouched. Still, the principle mattered: an allegation should lead to scrutiny.

Then there was Cheddi Jagan. During his tenure, when a WPA leader got wind of information that a minister’s son had received a car from a businessman, the President intervened. It was contended that the vehicle was purchased, not gifted. Fine. Return it anyway, Cheddi Jagan reportedly said. The symbolism was everything. Appearances mattered. Public trust mattered.

We are also told that when another minister built a house—modest by today’s standards, Cheddi Jagan questioned him about the source of funds. Imagine that happening today. The question alone would be considered subversive, possibly treasonous, and certainly “anti-development.”

Fast forward to the present. The idea that today a senior official today might be asked to explain the sudden appearance of assets allegedly wildly inconsistent with known income strains credulity. Public confidence in any such investigation is, generously speaking, very low. Realistically, it is subterranean.

About twenty years ago, it was the United States government that forced the government of Guyana to launch a commission of inquiry into the involvement of a government minister alleged to have had links with death squads.

Given this background, it is no wonder that people are now looking, sadly, towards the United States to do what we will not do ourselves. This reliance on the US, to solve our own problems, intensified after the U.S. imposed sanctions on three Guyanese persons, including a middle-level public official.

The tool used by the United States was the Global Magnitsky Act, a formidable piece of U.S. legislation that allows Washington to sanction foreign individuals involved in significant corruption or serious human rights abuses. Under it, the U.S. can freeze U.S.-based assets and revoke visas. It applies to foreign officials at all levels, their facilitators, and those who materially benefit from corruption. Crucially, no domestic conviction is required. The standard is not a criminal judgment in Guyana but a determination by U.S. authorities.

It means that even wealthy foreign nationals, politicians, or their relatives—if found to have acquired assets grossly disproportionate to lawful income or to have benefited from corrupt conduct—can be sanctioned, even if their home country does absolutely nothing.

But before we outsource our conscience entirely, reality intrudes. The U.S. is selective. Its extraterritorial laws are not applied evenly across the globe. The Magnitsky Act is typically reserved for large-scale corruption that intersects with U.S. national interests. Petty, localised looting—our artisanal, homegrown corruption—is unlikely to make the cut.

So no, the United States will not solve Guyana’s problems. It shouldn’t. Waiting for Washington to police our integrity is like waiting for your ex to remind you of your anniversary: technically possible, emotionally misguided.

The uncomfortable truth is this: we have to solve our own problems. That means exposing suspected corruption early. It means demanding, at the very least, a binding code of conduct for senior officialdom. And it means mandatory investigations whenever reasonable cause exists to inquire into illicit wealth accumulation.

Until then, public confidence will remain what it is now: a faint memory, occasionally mentioned at conferences, like a long-lost relative everyone pretends to have met.

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

---

• corruption, investigation, Peeping Tom, Transparency

---