ICJ border case: Venezuela submitted no evidence to support claim to Essequibo – Guyana’s legal team 

May 09, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Venezuela’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Guyana border controversy matter is lacking in evidential value.  This is the position taken by lawyers arguing Guyana’s case before the world court.

Addressing a sitting of the court at the Hague, Netherlands on Friday, British-French international lawyer, Professor Philippe Sands KC highlighted the attempt by Venezuela to overturn the 1899 Arbitral Award without a shred of evidence.

He underscored Venezuela’s overreliance on the 1949 Mallet-Prevost memorandum, which Caracas has long used to claim the Arbitral Award was invalid.

“There is none, not a shred of evidence, even assuming the Mallet Prevost memorandum to be accurate, and we have no idea whether it is. It does no more than describe tribunal president’s efforts to gain consensus by warning that a majority award is likely to be less attractive in one way or another,” Sands said.

In his submission as lead counsel in the border controversy, Professor Sands noted that Venezuela was already aware, from the moment the award was issued in 1899, and that the decision involved compromise among arbitrators.

According to Sands, Venezuela accepted the ruling for 63 years, negotiated and signed the 1905 treaty implementing the boundary, and faithfully adhered to it for decades before abruptly changing its position in 1962.

He explained that contrary to Venezuela’s contention, it was not uncommon for arbitrators to secure consensus as this is a normal feature of international arbitration and should not be interpreted as wrongdoing.

Sands asked the court to reject Venezuela’s claims that the award was the product of political blackmail.

“The striving for consensus is an act of decency and wisdom,” he stated. He warned that overturning an arbitral award and a treaty more than a century old would create serious and far-reaching global effects.

The professor cautioned that an overturn of the award will in fact threaten the stability of international borders established after independence across Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.

“You would rekindle the embers of dead empires…You would plunge Guyana into a new form of domination and oppression in relations with its much larger neighbor. It would threaten to open the gates of challenge to any and every colonial era arbitration award or boundary settlement,” he said.

In his submission for Guyana, Professor Nilufer Oral reinforced Guyana’s position, arguing that Venezuela had long accepted the validity of the 1899 Award through its own conduct and implementation of the boundary for more than half a century.

Professor Oral told the court that Venezuela was aware of every alleged defect in the award from the very beginning and had “lost the right” to challenge it after decades of acceptance and acquiescence.

Meanwhile, international lawyer, Paul Reichler noted that Guyana’s claim to the Essequibo and legality of the 1899 award remains “unchallenged.”

He emphasised that Venezuela failed to provide contemporaneous documentation supporting its allegations of coercion, fraud or conspiracy.

Further, Reichler told the court that historical records show it was Venezuela that sought arbitration with Britain and requested the support of the United States to secure that process.

He said Venezuela’s now falsely depicts Britain and the United States as having conspired in the late 19th century to deprive Venezuela of territory through the 1897 Treaty of Washington and the 1899 Arbitral Award.

“Venezuela accepted the agreement, freely and without compulsion, as serving its best interests,” he argued.

The lawyer noted that this is evidenced by statements from Venezuelan officials and President Joaquin Crespo at the time.

In further rebuttal of Venezuela claims, the lawyer stated Venezuela is in historical aggressor, and not a supporter of decolonisation and Guyana’s independence as it wants to portray itself.

“This is nothing more than a cynical inversion of history…Their claim is frivolous,” he said.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, made an appeal for the ICJ to deliver a clear, explicit and unambiguous judgment affirming the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award.

He warned that any ambiguity could embolden Venezuela to continue laying claim to the majority of Guyana’s sovereign territory.

“For Guyana and its people, the stakes could scarcely be higher… “The loss of the territory claimed by Venezuela would eviscerate Guyana. Indeed, the country as we know it would cease to exist,” he asserted.

He said generations of Guyanese have lived under what he described as the “long and threatening shadow” of Venezuela’s claim to more than 70 per cent of Guyana’s territory. As such, the attorney general called for the court to make a declaration that would put an end to Venezuela’s claims once and for all.

“If the court accepts Guyana’s arguments, as we are confident that it will, then it is essential that the court’s judgment directly, explicitly and unambiguously affirm the validity of the 1899 Award in its integrity and the boundary which it established…Any ambiguity or qualification in the court’s judgments will inevitably be seized upon by Venezuela as a basis for continuing to lay claim to vast swaths of Guyana’s sovereign territory,” Nandlall said.

The case will continue before ICJ on Monday when Venezuela will present its final argument.

---

• Arbitral Award, Essequibo, ICJ, Venezuela, World Court

---