Norton speaks

May 12, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The tragedy of PNCR Leader, Aubrey Norton is not merely that he lost power. Political leaders lose elections every day. The real tragedy is that when he had the opportunity to lead with courage, clarity, and conviction on the most important issue facing Guyana, he chose hesitation, ambiguity, and political cowardice. Now, after leading his party into one of its worst electoral humiliations and being stripped of his position as Opposition Leader, Mr. Norton suddenly finds his voice on ring-fencing Exxon’s oil projects.

What changed? Exxon did not suddenly become more powerful. The contract did not suddenly become worse. The facts did not suddenly emerge yesterday. Guyanese have been hearing for years from international experts, economists, watchdog groups, and even local commentators that Guyana was being shortchanged by the absence of ring-fencing provisions in the Stabroek Block agreement. The IMF said it. The World Bank said it. Chatham House said it. The UNDP said it. Kaieteur News has screamed it from every rooftop possible.

But when Aubrey Norton stood at the helm of the parliamentary opposition he behaved like a man terrified of confronting ExxonMobil directly. Every time the issue arose, he danced around it. He spoke about “reviewing projects” and “examining viability.” He sounded more like Exxon’s cautious legal adviser than the Leader of the Opposition for the people of Guyana.

Now that he has been politically declawed, now that his authority within the opposition has collapsed, now that his party resembles a scattered and voiceless shell of its former self, Mr. Norton has discovered the wisdom of ring-fencing. Suddenly, he agrees Guyana should stop allowing Exxon to use Guyana’s own profits to finance future projects.

Well, welcome to the party, Mr. Norton. The Guyanese people arrived there years ago.

The painful irony is that this position would have mattered when Norton still had political influence, public leverage, and parliamentary relevance. Back then, a firm and uncompromising opposition stance could have pressured the government politically and internationally. It could have forced public debate. It could have helped build bipartisan national pressure on ExxonMobil. Instead, Norton preferred political caution. He preferred soft words. He preferred accommodation.

One cannot escape the perception that while Guyanese were demanding stronger representation against an oil contract widely criticised as lopsided, Norton seemed far more comfortable standing beneath Exxon’s frock than standing in defense of the nation’s economic future.

And this is why the electorate punished him so severely.

Leadership is not about discovering courage after defeat. Leadership is about taking risks while you still hold power. It is about speaking hard truths when it is inconvenient, not after your influence evaporates. Anyone can sound bold when they no longer possess responsibility, leverage, or consequences.

Mr. Norton now says Exxon should use its own profits to fund future developments instead of continuously deducting costs from Guyana’s share. But that is precisely what critics of the current arrangement have argued for years. Under the existing setup, Guyana keeps waiting for the promised oil wealth while billions continue disappearing into cost recovery mechanisms that endlessly delay the country’s full benefits.

This is not a technical debate anymore. It is a moral one.

How can a poor developing country with struggling families, rising living costs, collapsing purchasing power, inadequate healthcare, and underdeveloped infrastructure continue subsidising one of the richest oil corporations on earth? At what point does investment become exploitation? At what point does partnership become dependency?

The disturbing reality is that Guyana’s political class, both government and opposition, has repeatedly failed to show the spine necessary to confront ExxonMobil aggressively. Jagdeo once promised renegotiation. That disappeared. Norton once hid behind caution. That too has now magically transformed into outrage after political collapse.

But Guyanese must be careful not to confuse late realisation with leadership.

History will not judge political leaders by what they discovered after losing power. It will judge them by what they defended while they still possessed it. And on the defining economic issue of Guyana’s generation, Aubrey Norton’s record remains one of hesitation when boldness was required most.

The country did not need another cautious politician whispering concerns behind closed doors. It needed a national leader prepared to publicly fight for a better deal, demand ring-fencing, and challenge the endless draining of Guyana’s oil revenues.

That moment came and passed.

Now, Norton’s new position sounds less like statesmanship and more like political repentance from a man who has no relevance.

---

• Aubrey Norton, Editorial, Exxon, PNCR, ring-fencing

---