Mr. Ram misses the point entirely

Jul 13, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – This column has a standing position. It does not usually reply to responses, unless those responses allege misrepresentation or mischaracterisation of arguments. This is the basis upon which I respond to Christopher Ram’s letter published in yesterday’s edition of the Kaieteur News.

Christopher Ram’s response to my column rests almost entirely on a misrepresentation of what I wrote. He says that I have treated him as though he were accusing the president of criminal conduct. I did no such thing.

My column never suggested that Mr. Ram had alleged the commission of a criminal offence. But one cannot demand an independent investigation into “every aspect” of the president’s agricultural enterprise without some basis for doing so. Investigations are not convened without a basis. So, what is this basis if not the possibility of something being amiss? Is it purely for transparency? And is there not already a basis for transparency via integrity legislation, however deficient that may be? What then is the basis for a call for a commission of inquiry?

On what basis does he seek an inquiry? If, there is a basis, it is he, not me, that bears the responsibility of identifying the evidence that gives rise to those concerns.

The need for such a basis and producing the prima facie evidence were the point of my column.

Mr. Ram also suggests that I confused accountability with criminality by referring to concepts such as burden of proof and a prima facie case. Again, he misstates my argument.

Does he not know that the principle that he who asserts must prove is not confined to criminal courts?  It is one of the oldest principles of justice. Whether one is asking a court to grant relief, or for someone to commence proceedings, or the State to establish a Commission of Inquiry with coercive powers, the person making such demands must first demonstrate a factual basis for doing so.

A Commission of Inquiry is not a device for discovering whether grounds for concern exist.  It is established because credible grounds already exist. And this was one of the central arguments that I made concerning Ram’s call.

Mr. Ram says he merely asks questions. But questions are not evidence. A lengthy catalogue of questions, however skillfully drafted, cannot substitute for a prima facie case. Otherwise, anyone could frame a series of speculative questions about any public or private official and then insist that the State establish an inquiry to determine whether any of them might be true.

As I said, that is not accountability. It is a fishing expedition.

He further criticises me for not answering his questions. But that was never the purpose of my column. I did not set out to defend the President or explain his affairs. I addressed a single issue: whether the questions posed by Mr. Ram, without supporting evidence of wrongdoing, justify the extraordinary step of establishing an independent Commission of Inquiry.

They do not.

Mr. Ram has a right to an opinion concerning the significance of the chronology of the farm’s establishment. Yet chronology was central to the controversy that fuelled calls for an inquiry. The public was led to believe by the person who originally triggered this controversy that a vast agricultural enterprise had materialised within roughly three years while President Ali was in office. If it is now accepted that the enterprise originated with land acquired some fifteen years ago and an existing poultry operation, then one of the principal factual premises underpinning public suspicion has materially changed. That is hardly an irrelevant development.

Mr. Ram is entirely correct that the President should be held to a higher standard of transparency than an ordinary citizen. Few would quarrel with that proposition. But it does not follow that a higher standard of transparency translates into a lower legal threshold for establishing a Commission of Inquiry. Even the highest office-holder is entitled to the protection of due process. The principle that investigations should be based on evidence rather than suspicion applies equally to Presidents, judges, ministers and ordinary citizens.

If occupying high office alone is sufficient to justify a Commission of Inquiry whenever questions are raised, then every President, Prime Minister or Cabinet Minister could face repeated public inquiries simply because political opponents framed enough questions.

Finally, Mr. Ram says that if there is another independent mechanism, he would welcome it. That concession is revealing. It demonstrates that the real issue is no longer whether a Commission of Inquiry is warranted, but whether there should be some form of investigation.

Yet even then, the same principle applies. Before any independent investigative body is asked to exercise its powers, there must first be objective evidence establishing a basis for that investigation. Mr. Ram should state the evidence to do to.

The law does not authorise investigations simply because questions have been asked. Nor does it permit the coercive machinery of the State to be invoked in the hope that evidence may eventually be found.

That is the principle my column defended. Mr. Ram has not answered it.

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

---

• Christopher Ram, Letter T Estate, Peeping Tom

---