Development must be anchored in transparency, competitive fairness, institutional oversight, and long-term national interest

Jan 17, 2026 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The rapid proliferation of large-scale hotel and commercial projects across Guyana since 2020 continues to raise serious questions about transparency, sustainability, and equity in the country’s development and investment framework. These concerns are now compounded by the operation of the Government’s Single Window Programme, which appears, in practice, to favour well-connected investors while marginalising ordinary citizens and local authorities.

While the Government celebrates an unprecedented hospitality “boom,” the Guyanese people remain largely uninformed as to who the real owners and beneficial owners of these developments are, what concessions were granted, and whether feasibility and sustainability studies were undertaken before approvals were issued. In several cases, hotel brands are prominently advertised, yet branding is not ownership. Who ultimately owns these assets? Who exercises controlling interest? Are the companies registered locally or offshore, and in which jurisdictions? These are not academic questions; they go to the heart of accountability and national interest.

These concerns are especially relevant in light of shifting geopolitical realities. With the United States now signalling renewed engagement with Venezuela and the possible return of major oil investors to that market, it is entirely plausible that oil-related activity in Guyana could be scaled down over time. Against this backdrop, one must ask whether the current wave of hotel construction is grounded in realistic demand projections or in overly optimistic assumptions that may soon unravel. If demand contracts, who bears the financial risk, and what exposure does the Guyanese state face through concessions, land allocations, or guarantees?

Go-Invest, as the statutory body charged with receiving and evaluating investment proposals, owes the public far greater disclosure. Who are the principal shareholders and beneficial owners of these projects? What criteria were applied in approving them? What tax holidays, duty-free concessions, land leases, or preferential financing arrangements were granted? Were politically exposed persons involved directly or indirectly? Instead, the people of Guyana are left in the wilderness, expected to accept grand announcements without access to the facts that underpin them.

Equally troubling is the use of state lands for several of these massive developments. Were these lands publicly advertised and independently valued? Were competitive bidding processes undertaken, allowing local and foreign investors to compete openly for prime locations? Or were lands allocated through discretionary arrangements to entities whose ownership structures remain opaque? State assets are not private property and must be managed transparently and in the public interest.

A clear and disturbing pattern has also emerged in the construction of these projects. The Marriott at Timehri was built by Chinese contractors, as was the recently commissioned AC Marriott at Ogle. Privately owned properties such as the Aiden by Best Western in Bourda and King’s Hotel and related developments were likewise constructed by Chinese firms. When this pattern is viewed alongside the rapid expansion of Chinese-owned supermarkets, hardware stores, and fast-food operations across all regions of Guyana, it raises a legitimate and unavoidable question: is this the outcome of open, competitive procurement, or the result of informal trade-offs, tied financing, or bundled arrangements between the Government and Chinese companies? Furthermore, do construction firms, financiers, and owners overlap in ways that have not been disclosed?

The operation of the Single Window Programme further intensifies these concerns. Was this mechanism deliberately designed to bypass local authorities and traditional oversight bodies, thereby allowing plans and permits for major investors to be fast-tracked without meaningful scrutiny? If so, this represents a serious distortion of administrative fairness. While large developers, many with opaque ownership structures, appear to move seamlessly through approval processes, the ordinary citizen and small business owner continue to endure prolonged delays, repeated requests for documentation, and bureaucratic inertia when seeking approvals for far more modest projects.

Such unequal treatment erodes trust in public institutions and fosters the perception that access to speed and efficiency is determined not by compliance with the law, but by proximity to power.

Between 2020 and 2025, Guyana has witnessed or planned hotel investments running into hundreds of millions of US dollars, involving internationally branded properties such as Courtyard by Marriott (Timehri), AC Hotel (Ogle), Aiden by Best Western, and several others under construction or proposed. Yet public disclosures on ownership, beneficial ownership, land valuation, procurement processes, and long-term financial sustainability remain strikingly limited.

Development must be more than concrete, glass, and brand names. It must be anchored in transparency, competitive fairness, institutional oversight, and long-term national interest. Without these, Guyana risks entrenching a two-tier system; one for the well-connected and opaque, and another for everyone else.

The people of Guyana deserve answers, not platitudes.

Yours sincerely,

Annette Ferguson

---

• Annette Ferguson, competitive fairness, Development, institutional oversight, Letters, Transparency

---