Flipping and flopping

May 28, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – If there is one thing that should be simple in a democracy, it is a press conference. One person asks questions on behalf of the public. One person answers on behalf of the state. No drama. No tricks. No role reversal.

Yet we keep managing to complicate even that.

We have seen, more than once, how sections of the independent media are treated at press conferences hosted by the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party. There is a pattern that leaves a sour taste: impatience with certain questions, selective irritation, and an attitude that sometimes suggests the question itself is the problem rather than the answer being required.

So, it was disappointing—though, sadly, not surprising—to see how the President of Guyana engaged with a reporter from this newspaper at his most recent press conference. This was the President’s first press conference in more than six months.

To the reporter’s credit, she did not crumble under pressure. She stood her ground and refused to be humiliated or pushed into a corner. She stood tall and did not allow the roles of journalist and interviewee to be blurred.

She must be commended for that because once a reporter has to start defending herself instead of asking questions, the public stops getting answers. What they get is drama.

A press conference is not a debate. It is not a courtroom where the accused gets to cross-examine the prosecutor. It is not a stage for rhetorical gymnastics. The host answers. The reporter asks. That is the basic plot.

But on this occasion, a simple and straightforward question was put about what benefits does Guyana derive when companies flip local concessions?

Instead of answering directly, the President attempted a familiar manoeuvre—turning the question back on the reporter. It is a political reflex that sometimes passes for cleverness. But in this case, it looked more like evasion.

When leaders are not prepared to answer a question, they sometimes try to turn the questioning itself into the story. That may create a moment of spectacle, but it does nothing for public understanding.

The issue of “flipping” local assets is not new in Guyana. It has been raised in different forms under different governments.

We have had concerns raised about foreign companies acquiring mining interests and later transferring or selling them, sometimes at significantly higher valuations, including transactions involving gold mining concessions and Chinese-linked companies.

In 2004, under the PPP/C administration, portions of the old state-owned LINMINE operations were restructured into new arrangements involving Omai Bauxite Mining Inc., with IAMGOLD holding a majority stake and the Government retaining a minority share. Later, in 2006, IAMGOLD announced the sale of its 70 percent stake to Bosai Minerals Group, reportedly for tens of millions of US dollars, along with assumed debt. Critics immediately pointed to what they saw as a pattern: assets entering one set of hands and leaving in another at a significantly higher implied valuation within a short period.

Then there is the older controversy from the early 1990s involving Demerara Woods Limited, sold under the then PNC government to Lord Beaverbrook, with large timber concessions attached. Shortly after, Beaverbrook’s interests were reportedly transferred or merged into another group at a much higher valuation.

The PPP at the time described it as a “giveaway” and evidence of asset flipping. The PNC rejected those claims and disputed the figures and interpretation. Even today, versions of that argument still echo in political speeches.

In fact, not too long ago, then Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo himself repeated the same narrative of flipping in strong terms, pointing to what he described as large and rapid gains from resale of Guyanese assets. He said then, “They sold the … assets to Lord Beaverbrook. Just Google Lord Beaverbrook…they sold it, [ Beaverbrook] resold it for a major set of money,” he declared.

So, the idea is not new. The labels change depending on who is speaking, but the underlying concern remains: did Guyana get fair value, or did someone else capture the upside?

That is why the President’s recent attempt to dismiss the question by shifting focus back to “investments made” and “exploration costs” does not settle the matter. It raises more questions than it answers.

From an accounting and valuation standpoint, exploration costs and early investments are not magic shields that erase concerns about asset appreciation. In fact, in mining and natural resource sectors, exploration costs are often sunk costs—already expended, already risked, and frequently capitalised only under specific conditions. They do not automatically justify a dramatic increase in resale value unless clearly demonstrated through proven reserves, audited feasibility studies, market conditions, and independent valuation.

In other words, saying “we invested before selling” is not a full argument. It is an incomplete sentence pretending to be a conclusion.

This is precisely why journalists ask these questions. Not to score points, but to seek clarity.

There is nothing wrong with being challenged by questions. In fact, that is the point of the exercise.

The President should be encouraged to hold more frequent press conferences. But they should be structured with a clearer understanding of roles: journalists ask, leaders answer. Not the other way around.

Because in the end, the public is not interested in who “won” the exchange. They are interested in whether the questions were answered.

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

---

• Flipping, flopping, Gold Mining, Peeping Tom

---