Watch the PPPC with hawk-like eyes

Feb 16, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is an old saying in Guyana: when rain falling, don’t wait till yuh mattress wet to look fuh leak. For years, the APNU+AFC warned that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPPC) must be watched with “hawk-like eyes.” Some people laughed. Some dismissed it as politics. But today, with new questions swirling around the Berbice River Bridge, that warning sounding less like rhetoric and more like advice.

The Berbice River Bridge was built under a concession arrangement backed by the Berbice River Bridge Act 2006. The Act clearly says that when the concession period expires, the bridge must revert to the State — free and clear of encumbrances. In plain language: at the end of the concession, the bridge becomes the property of the people of Guyana.

For years, it has been widely assumed that the concession period runs for 21 years. Many were led to believe that it began in 2006 when the agreement was signed. Under the common understanding — 21 years from 2006 — the concession would expire in 2027. Under that timeline, the bridge would soon become public property without the Government having to buy it.

That is why alarm bells should have rung last year when the Government signaled that negotiations might have to be held with the Bridge company as part of a broader transportation policy. Then more people should have paused. They should have asked, “Why negotiations?” What is there to negotiate?

Then came the recent statement from a Minister that the Government is finalising the process for full acquisition of the Berbice River Bridge. That statement has raised more than eyebrows. It has raised serious questions Why acquisition? Why buy something that, under the law, is expected to revert to the State? The explanation offered was that bringing the bridge fully under state control would remove the financial burden on commuters and enhance infrastructure integration. That sounds good. Nobody likes tolls. Nobody objects to better transportation planning. But good intentions do not cancel the need for scrutiny. One letter writer, Hemdutt Kumar, asked the most basic of them: why is the Government moving to acquire the bridge when, from next year, it will be the State’s for free? That is not a political question. That is a common-sense question.

The entire assumption rests on the belief that the concession agreement runs for 21 years beginning in 2006. If that is correct, then the expiry is near. If expiry is near, and the Act mandates reversion, then acquisition should not require payment.

Except for one very important detail.

The Concession Agreement itself — the document that actually governs the concession period — has not been made public. It is not attached to the Act. The Act sets out the framework. It requires that the agreement provide for reversion. But the Act does not specify the exact duration. That is left to the Concession Agreement. And that agreement has not been placed before the people. We do not know, with certainty, whether the period is exactly 21 years from 2006. We do not know whether there are extension clauses. We do not know whether amendments have been made over the years. We do not know whether financial triggers, vehicle thresholds, or renegotiations have altered the timeline.

In short, we are operating on assumption. And governance should never run on assumption.

This is where the earlier warning returns to the front of the page. The APNU+AFC repeatedly said that the PPPC must be watched carefully. If the bridge is due to revert soon, the Government should clearly state the exact expiry date under the Concession Agreement. If acquisition now makes financial sense compared to waiting, then show the numbers. If there are legal constraints that require negotiation, disclose them. Silence breeds suspicion. The media, too, must reflect. It is not enough to report statements. It is necessary to interrogate them. When “negotiations” were first mentioned, follow-up questions should have been automatic. When “acquisition” was announced, the first question should have been: what is the remaining term of the concession? Instead, it took a letter writer to voice what many citizens were quietly thinking.

This is not about being anti-government. It is not about stopping development. If the bridge is to become public property next year under the law, then the people deserve clarity. If it will not, then the people deserve to know why. Hawk-like eyes are not about hostility. They are about responsibility.

In a country now managing oil wealth and billion-dollar infrastructure, vigilance cannot be optional. The Berbice Bridge question is a reminder that laws matter, agreements matter, and transparency matters even more. Rain does not warn before it falls. Better to look at the roof now than wait until the bed is soaked.

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

---

• APNU+AFC, Berbice River Bridge, Peeping Tom, PPPC

---