Guyana Focus
a precursor to Guyana's expected
oil boom
In spite of heightened political uncertainty, Guyana’s economy continues to experience relatively strong growth, largely driven by increased oil-related activities on the back of preparation for “first oil” early in 2020.
In fact, the country has benefitted from 14 consecutive years of positive growth, dating back to 2006. Under the current APNU administration, the economy expanded by an average of 3.3% during the 2015-2019 period, significantly lower than the previous 5-
year period, 2010-2014, during which the economy grew by an average of 4.6%.
What this means is that in spite of healthy economic drivers, the economy has performed below expectations.
In his mid-2019 report, Finance Minister, Winston Jordan said that the economy grew by 4% in the first half of the year and forecasted that it will grow by 4.5% for the year, down marginally from 4.6% projected at the beginning of the year.
Jordan, however, cautioned that this year’s growth projection could be hampered by poor weather conditions and an uncertain political climate. This would largely stem from the potential for contentious general elections expected to be held before the end of the year, following a successful no-confidence motion against the government last December – although the coalition APNU+AFC government has remained in power against all odds.
Jordan noted that barring any disruptions in sugar and rice production, political action was unlikely to take a major toll on growth but poor weather could affect agriculture and mining.
In delivering the mid-year report, the Finance Minister chose to compare the most recent 5-year performance with that of 2001-2005, the early years of former President Bharat Jagdeo, during which the economy grew by a meagre 0.5% – the worst period under the previous administration.
In fact, during the first eight years of the Jagdeo administration, 1998-2005, the economy barely kept its head above water, growing marginally by 0.3%. However, in the following nine years, 2006-2014, growth picked strongly by an average of 4.5%. Incidentally, this is the pace of growth that the current administration inherited when it assumed power in 2015.
The truth is, between 1992, when the previous administration came to power, and 2014 when it exited office, Guyana’s economy grew by an average of over 4%. Barring four years of negative growth – 1998 (-1.7%), 2000 (-1.35%), 2003 (-0.65%) and 2005 (-3%) – the country experienced 19 years of positive growth under the PPP.
Arguably, during the former PPP administration, the trend in the country’s economic growth can be classified into three phases. During the first 6-year phase, 1992-1997, GDP growth averaged an outstanding 7.3%. Then, Guyanese were reveling in the return to democracy under the leadership of the late Dr. Cheddi Jagan and were ecstatic about realizing their dreams of freedom following 28 years of illegitimate rule under the demagogic PNC administration.
The death of Jagan in 1997 was followed by one of the weakest periods of growth in the country’s recent history. Between 1998 and 2005, GDP growth plummeted to an average of less than one-quarter of 1%, largely under the leadership of former President Bharat Jagdeo who assumed office in 1999 following the resignation of the late President Janet Jagan who had replaced her husband upon his death.
This period was characterized by political turmoil, led by late President Desmond Hoyte who attempted to make the country ungovernable. Incidentally, Hoyte never accepted Janet Jagan as President and completely disrespected her anointed successor, Jagdeo, who was not previously an active member on the national political scene.
The third phase of growth, 2006 – 2014, averaging 4.6%, represents nine years of consecutive growth.
Comparatively, from 1980-1990, GDP growth under the PNC administration (now APNU) declined by an average of 3.1%, with eight years of negative growth and two years of mediocre growth of under 1%. In 1991, GDP grew by 6%, after the late President Hoyte put the country up “for sale” – the only bright spot between 1980 and 1991.
During the PPP administration, the full impact of debt relief, mainly under the combined World Bank and IMF-initiated Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) program kicked in, reducing the country’s external debt from $2 billion in 1992 to $700 million in 2007. The PPP had inherited the huge $2 billion debt burden from its predecessor, the PNC.
The resulting significant reduction in the servicing cost of the debt burden, which was one of the main impediments to poverty alleviation and economic growth, provided the government with room to embark on development initiatives.
What is important to recognize is the consistency of growth between 2006 and 2014. Had it not been for eight years of almost zero growth during the rookie years of Jagdeo, the economy would have been much better off. Fortunately, economic growth picked up appreciably in Jagdeo’s later years and remained strong under former President Donald Ramotar – in spite of opposition actions to stall growth between 2011 and 2014.
With oil revenues expected to commence flowing next year, Guyana is expected to become the fastest growing economy in the world, growing by an annual average 22.9% between 2020-2023, based on IMF forecasts. However, without oil, the economy is expected to grow around its current pace, at an annual average of 4.7%. Therefore, the party which wins the next elections would not have a lot to boast about, unless the non-oil growth rate takes off beyond current levels.
Georgetown – Former Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran has defended his sharp criticism of the CCJ for not issuing definitive orders in the no confidence motion case and he pointed out over the weekend that the High Court here is now being approached for various rulings which should have been issued by Guyana’s top court.
Ramkarran, a Senior Counsel, raised eyebrows two Sundays ago when, in his column in the Stabroek News, he flayed the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) for leaving key decisions to the “constitutional actors”.
“The timid, indecisive and ineffectual decision-making of the CCJ has brought elections no closer, has left the Guyanese people defenceless in the face of an egregious assault on their constitutional rights and has left open its decision to more than one interpretation. The Caribbean Court of Justice has failed Guyana”, Ramkarran said in his August 25th column.
His attack on the court triggered a letter to Stabroek News from Andrew Pollard SC who defended the CCJ’s decision and criticised Ramkarran.
In his last Sunday Stabroek column, Ramkarran maintained his criticism of the CCJ decision.
He argued that the CCJ has broad powers to make the orders that had been sought in the no-confidence motion cases.
“Without serious justification, it declined to do so. Its timid and ineffectual decision has intensified the constitutional chaos in Guyana. High Court cases are now being brought for orders and declarations that the CCJ ought to have made. In their absence, the Government has refused to act on the CCJ’s decision”, he said.
Ramkarran said that Pollard should know that criticizing judges and courts in far sharper language than his (Ramkarran’s) is quite an accepted activity in normal countries.
“What is not normal is for a court that finds constitutional violations, to decline to make orders to rectify those violations, but relies instead on the ‘integrity’ of politicians. But no word from Mr. Pollard about this abject failure of the CCJ and of the Government’s continuing violations of the Constitution.
Ramkarran, a Senior Counsel, raised eyebrows two Sundays ago when, in his column in the Stabroek News, he flayed the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) for leaving key decisions to the “constitutional actors”.
“The timid, indecisive and ineffectual decision-making of the CCJ has brought elections no closer, has left the Guyanese people defenceless in the face of an egregious assault on their constitutional rights and has left open its decision to more than one interpretation. The Caribbean Court of Justice has failed Guyana”, Ramkarran said in his August 25th column.
His attack on the court triggered a letter to Stabroek News from Andrew Pollard SC who defended the CCJ’s decision and criticised Ramkarran.
In his last Sunday Stabroek column, Ramkarran maintained his criticism of the CCJ decision.
He argued that the CCJ has broad powers to make the orders that had been sought in the no-confidence motion cases.
“Without serious justification, it declined to do so. Its timid and ineffectual decision has intensified the constitutional chaos in Guyana. High Court cases are now being brought for orders and declarations that the CCJ ought to have made. In their absence, the Government has refused to act on the CCJ’s decision”, he said.
Ramkarran said that Pollard should know that criticizing judges and courts in far sharper language than his (Ramkarran’s) is quite an accepted activity in normal countries.
“What is not normal is for a court that finds constitutional violations, to decline to make orders to rectify those violations, but relies instead on the ‘integrity’ of politicians. But no word from Mr. Pollard about this abject failure of the CCJ and of the Government’s continuing violations of the Constitution.
“And Mr. Pollard seeks to hide behind the ridiculous red herring that I would have been satisfied if the CCJ had fixed a date for elections. No one ever made such a nonsensical suggestion – not me nor the lawyers appearing in the cases before the CCJ, because everyone knows only the President can fix a date. But had the CCJ ordered that the Cabinet must resign and that elections were due by 21 March, and it’s now up to Parliament, or by 18 September, it would have been enforcing the provisions of the Constitution which it was asked to do. That would have made all the difference. But it declined. (As a) result the Cabinet has refused to resign and the President has not set a date for elections. The Government’s excuse is that the CCJ made no order”, Ramkarran asserted.
Ramkarran said that as far as can be ascertained, the CCJ’s basis for not directing that the Cabinet must resign and not ordering the date by which the elections must be held, is contained in the following passages: “Their meaning [the provisions of the Constitution] is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them….Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in Gecom), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held.”
But Ramkarran said that the “constitutional actors” did not honour the provisions of the Constitution. He said that the date for elections has not been fixed and that was why the matters were in court and why the CCJ was asked to make consequential orders and directives.
“The flimsy reasons for the CCJ to therefore fail to direct that the Cabinet must resign and order an outside date for elections, in accordance with the Constitution, are baffling”, Ramkarran stated.
Ramkarran added that criticisms of decisions of the CCJ and of courts in Guyana should be “more not less, using frank and outspoken language where necessary, but always respectfully, as I did. I will do so again if the occasion arises. The Judges of the CCJ, and our own judges for that matter, are expected to understand these basic principles”.
In his letter in the August 28 edition of Stabroek News, Pollard described Ramkarran’s language as “regrettable” and said “The CCJ interpreted the constitutional and legal issues brought before it, ruled definitively on these issues, and then stated that it was now up to the other two branches of the State to perform their constitutionally demarcated duties. In the present situation, the political actors must all display a certain level of maturity and undertake their respective functions. They have their own clearly constitutionally defined responsibilities and functions. Mr. Ramkarran cannot expect the Court to blithely assume these, and it is manifestly unfair for him to pillory it for not doing so when the Court has done its own part which is to elucidate the law”.
In his August 25th column in the Sunday Stabroek, Ramkarran had said “The CCJ’s intent to protect constitutional propriety is not in doubt. But its reliance on the integrity of third world politicians to do what is right was deeply short-sighted and mistaken in the absence of coercive remedies. The decision’s failure to bring forth elections will leave a permanent scar on Guyana’s polity”.
The CCJ was asked to rule on various cases emanating from the motion of no confidence passed against the government in Parliament on December 21, 2018. It ruled that the motion was validly passed and that the relevant sections of the constitution were now applicable. It however issued no coercive orders.
Ramkarran said that as far as can be ascertained, the CCJ’s basis for not directing that the Cabinet must resign and not ordering the date by which the elections must be held, is contained in the following passages: “Their meaning [the provisions of the Constitution] is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them….Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in Gecom), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held.”
But Ramkarran said that the “constitutional actors” did not honour the provisions of the Constitution. He said that the date for elections has not been fixed and that was why the matters were in court and why the CCJ was asked to make consequential orders and directives.
“The flimsy reasons for the CCJ to therefore fail to direct that the Cabinet must resign and order an outside date for elections, in accordance with the Constitution, are baffling”, Ramkarran stated.
Ramkarran added that criticisms of decisions of the CCJ and of courts in Guyana should be “more not less, using frank and outspoken language where necessary, but always respectfully, as I did. I will do so again if the occasion arises. The Judges of the CCJ, and our own judges for that matter, are expected to understand these basic principles”.
In his letter in the August 28 edition of Stabroek News, Pollard described Ramkarran’s language as “regrettable” and said “The CCJ interpreted the constitutional and legal issues brought before it, ruled definitively on these issues, and then stated that it was now up to the other two branches of the State to perform their constitutionally demarcated duties. In the present situation, the political actors must all display a certain level of maturity and undertake their respective functions. They have their own clearly constitutionally defined responsibilities and functions. Mr. Ramkarran cannot expect the Court to blithely assume these, and it is manifestly unfair for him to pillory it for not doing so when the Court has done its own part which is to elucidate the law”.
In his August 25th column in the Sunday Stabroek, Ramkarran had said “The CCJ’s intent to protect constitutional propriety is not in doubt. But its reliance on the integrity of third world politicians to do what is right was deeply short-sighted and mistaken in the absence of coercive remedies. The decision’s failure to bring forth elections will leave a permanent scar on Guyana’s polity”.
The CCJ was asked to rule on various cases emanating from the motion of no confidence passed against the government in Parliament on December 21, 2018. It ruled that the motion was validly passed and that the relevant sections of the constitution were now applicable. It however issued no coercive orders.
Georgetown – A Guyana-born Toronto imam is among a number of Canadian Muslims who have been denied entry from Canada into the United States in what some immigration lawyers say is a growing trend.
According to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation report that was published on Friday, at least six Canadian Muslim men had been denied entry at the United States border in the previous two weeks.
“The men and their families, all of whom are Canadian citizens, were given little in the way of explanation by border officials for the decision to deem them inadmissible,” the report said, referring to Imran Ally, who was born in Guyana, and another Muslim, who is an Iraqi Turkmen community leader, after they were denied entry.
It further noted that neither Guyana nor Iraq is among the seven Muslim-majority countries subject to United States President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” executive order, which essentially blocks refugees and visitors from those countries from entering the US.
Ally, a resident imam at the Toronto and Regional Islamic Congregation (TARIC) mosque for the last 20 years and a chaplain with Peel Regional Police, was travelling with his wife and three children to attend his best friend’s daughter’s wedding in the New York City borough of Queens. He had been set to serve as emcee.
The report explained that Ally and his wheelchair-bound, special-needs son were held at the Peace Bridge crossing near Fort Erie, Ontario for more than five hours. During that time, they faced three separate rounds of questioning by plainclothes and uniformed officers. Some of the questions centred on his charitable endeavours related to resettling Syrian refugees.
Ally was questioned about his work as a religious leader, photographed and fingerprinted and ultimately denied entry because he was told his name “matches that of a bad guy.”
He was driven back to the Canadian border by a police cruiser, cancelling his long-planned wedding role. “I knew going to the US for the first time wouldn’t be a red carpet welcome. I (knew) that I’d probably have to answer questions, I might even have to spend a long time. We were prepared for all of this, but never in my wildest dreams did I think they’d say I’m inadmissible because of my name,” Ally was quoted as saying. “The way it was done — they really at the end made me feel like I’m a criminal,” he added.
Ally was told to apply for visas at the US consulate in Toronto before returning to the border to seek entry, which the report said is an unusual process for people who hold Canadian passports.
According to the report, immigration firm CILF — Caruso Guberman Appleby is representing the six men and lawyers there say that if they have been seeing heightened activity, that suggests that there may be many other Canadian nationals facing similar problems at the border.
“We’ve seen a lot more in the last few weeks and we don’t know what to attribute it to. We know the climate there in the US has changed, it’s a bit different, but at the same time there are processes and procedures and people should be afforded opportunities to challenge a case,” Daud Ali, a lawyer at CILF, was quoted as saying by the CBC.
“But it’s hard to know what you’re going up against when you’re not told why you’re denied entry. The fact that they’re all Muslims, that raises some concerns about whether these people are being targeted or if this is a new form of some sort of ban…,” he added.
Joel Guberman, a partner at the firm, said that in his 40 years as an immigration lawyer, he had never seen such “a Kafkaesque scenario.”
The CBC asked the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) if there has been a new directive in recent weeks with respect to Muslim travellers from Canada and a spokesperson said the agency “has not had any new policy changes.”
While unable to speak to specific cases because of privacy laws, the CBP spokesperson added that “applicants for admission bear the burden of proof to establish that they are clearly eligible to enter the United States. In order to demonstrate that they are admissible, the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility.”
The report added that no Canadian citizen has a “right” to enter the US as entry happens at the sole discretion of the U.S. customs officers on duty — and they have a lot of latitude to ask questions to determine the admissibility of a foreign national.
CBP lists more than 60 grounds for inadmissibility divided into several major categories, including health-related reasons, criminality, security reasons, illegal entry and immigration violations, and documentation requirements.
According to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation report that was published on Friday, at least six Canadian Muslim men had been denied entry at the United States border in the previous two weeks.
“The men and their families, all of whom are Canadian citizens, were given little in the way of explanation by border officials for the decision to deem them inadmissible,” the report said, referring to Imran Ally, who was born in Guyana, and another Muslim, who is an Iraqi Turkmen community leader, after they were denied entry.
It further noted that neither Guyana nor Iraq is among the seven Muslim-majority countries subject to United States President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” executive order, which essentially blocks refugees and visitors from those countries from entering the US.
Ally, a resident imam at the Toronto and Regional Islamic Congregation (TARIC) mosque for the last 20 years and a chaplain with Peel Regional Police, was travelling with his wife and three children to attend his best friend’s daughter’s wedding in the New York City borough of Queens. He had been set to serve as emcee.
The report explained that Ally and his wheelchair-bound, special-needs son were held at the Peace Bridge crossing near Fort Erie, Ontario for more than five hours. During that time, they faced three separate rounds of questioning by plainclothes and uniformed officers. Some of the questions centred on his charitable endeavours related to resettling Syrian refugees.
Ally was questioned about his work as a religious leader, photographed and fingerprinted and ultimately denied entry because he was told his name “matches that of a bad guy.”
He was driven back to the Canadian border by a police cruiser, cancelling his long-planned wedding role. “I knew going to the US for the first time wouldn’t be a red carpet welcome. I (knew) that I’d probably have to answer questions, I might even have to spend a long time. We were prepared for all of this, but never in my wildest dreams did I think they’d say I’m inadmissible because of my name,” Ally was quoted as saying. “The way it was done — they really at the end made me feel like I’m a criminal,” he added.
Ally was told to apply for visas at the US consulate in Toronto before returning to the border to seek entry, which the report said is an unusual process for people who hold Canadian passports.
According to the report, immigration firm CILF — Caruso Guberman Appleby is representing the six men and lawyers there say that if they have been seeing heightened activity, that suggests that there may be many other Canadian nationals facing similar problems at the border.
“We’ve seen a lot more in the last few weeks and we don’t know what to attribute it to. We know the climate there in the US has changed, it’s a bit different, but at the same time there are processes and procedures and people should be afforded opportunities to challenge a case,” Daud Ali, a lawyer at CILF, was quoted as saying by the CBC.
“But it’s hard to know what you’re going up against when you’re not told why you’re denied entry. The fact that they’re all Muslims, that raises some concerns about whether these people are being targeted or if this is a new form of some sort of ban…,” he added.
Joel Guberman, a partner at the firm, said that in his 40 years as an immigration lawyer, he had never seen such “a Kafkaesque scenario.”
The CBC asked the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) if there has been a new directive in recent weeks with respect to Muslim travellers from Canada and a spokesperson said the agency “has not had any new policy changes.”
While unable to speak to specific cases because of privacy laws, the CBP spokesperson added that “applicants for admission bear the burden of proof to establish that they are clearly eligible to enter the United States. In order to demonstrate that they are admissible, the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility.”
The report added that no Canadian citizen has a “right” to enter the US as entry happens at the sole discretion of the U.S. customs officers on duty — and they have a lot of latitude to ask questions to determine the admissibility of a foreign national.
CBP lists more than 60 grounds for inadmissibility divided into several major categories, including health-related reasons, criminality, security reasons, illegal entry and immigration violations, and documentation requirements.
To advertise in ICW call
Call 905-738-5005