While we scramble over the cash grant!

Apr 30, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is a lot of noise right now about whether the government’s invitation for investments in the fertilizer and gas bottling projects is legal. But while we are all busy looking in that direction, something far more important is happening in plain sight.

The real issue is not just legality. It is ownership. And more specifically, who gets to own the next generation of Guyana’s wealth.

Does anyone recall the PPPC speaking about “shared prosperity”. The PPPC promised that ordinary Guyanese would not just benefit from development, but would participate in it. We were told about co-ownership of national projects. We were told about investment vehicles that would allow citizens to put their savings to work. We were told that wealth would be built at the individual, household, and national levels.

That was the vision of a country where development does not just enrich a few, but empowers the many. Now compare that promise with what is unfolding.

The government is seeking to raise roughly US$300 million for an ammonia (fertilizer) plant and additional funds for a gas bottling operation. These are not marginal ventures. These are potentially lucrative, long-term, revenue-generating projects. In simple terms, they are money-making machines.

And who is being invited to invest? Not the average Guyanese. Not the schoolteacher, the nurse, the public servant, or the small business owner.

Instead, the structure of the investment—millions of US dollars per investor—effectively limits participation to a narrow class: the wealthy, the connected, the “big players.” Whether you call them the bourgeoisie, the elite, or simply the well-off, the result is the same. These projects will end up in the hands of those who already have significant financial power.

So while the country debates legal technicalities, a deeper question is being quietly answered. That question is who will own Guyana’s future wealth?

Here is where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

At the same time that the government is seeking US$300 million from investors for these projects, it is also distributing roughly the same amount—US$300 million—in cash grants to citizens.

On the surface, that sounds generous. And for many households, that money provides immediate relief. There is no denying that. But let us be honest about what happens next.

Most of that cash will be spent on consumables. It will go into shops, supermarkets, and imported goods. It will circulate briefly and then disappear. It will not create lasting wealth for the individuals who receive it.

Now imagine a different approach. Instead of handing out US$300 million in cash to be spent, what if that same sum had been used to create a national investment pool? What if every adult Guyanese had been allocated shares in the fertilizer plant and the gas bottling company? What if, instead of a one-time payment, citizens received annual dividends—year after year—as these projects generated profits?

That would have been shared prosperity in action. That would have been co-ownership. That would have transformed ordinary citizens into stakeholders in the country’s most promising ventures.

But that is not what is happening. Instead, the cash is distributed and quickly consumed, while the ownership of profitable national projects is quietly concentrated in the hands of a few.

This is why the government must be watched with hawk-like eyes. Because the pattern matters.

When large, strategic projects are structured in ways that exclude the majority, it raises serious concerns about who policy is really serving. When state-led initiatives bypass broader public participation and instead cater to those with millions to invest, it sends a clear signal about priorities.

And when this happens in a country that has explicitly promised shared prosperity, the gap between words and actions becomes too wide to ignore.

None of this is to say that investment should not be encouraged. It should. None of this is to deny that large projects require significant capital. They do.

But the question is not whether investment is needed. The question is: who gets the opportunity?

If the government can design a system to distribute cash to every adult, it can certainly design a system to allow every adult to own a piece of national development. If it can guarantee returns to wealthy investors, it can structure dividends for ordinary citizens.

The choice, therefore, is not about feasibility. It is about intent.

Right now, the message being sent is simple: take your cash, spend it, and move on—while others step in to own the assets that will generate wealth for decades.

That is not shared prosperity. That is a transfer of opportunity.

And unless Guyanese begin to look beyond the legal debates and focus on the bigger picture, we may wake up one day to find that the most valuable parts of our economy are already spoken for—owned not by the many, but by the few who were always in a position to take advantage.

This is all the more reason why the Opposition must state, plainly and without ambiguity, that any fertilizer or gas bottling project structured to exclude ordinary Guyanese from ownership will not stand. And that upon assuming office in 2030 it will take the necessary steps to bring those assets back under national control in a way that genuinely reflects shared prosperity.

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

---

• cash grant, fertilizer and gas bottling, Guyana’s wealth, Peeping Tom

---