Dear Editor,
The recent ruling by Justice Gino Persaud in the ConocoPhillips case has reverberated through the consciousness of patriotic Guyanese closely following the developments in the border dispute with Venezuela, and justifiably so.
For context, in 2019, a tribunal found Venezuela’s national oil company liable to the American multinational corporation ConocoPhillips for failure to repay a loan given to the Venezuelan company in 2003. In 2023, ConocoPhillips filed proceedings in Guyana against the Venezuelan company to register and enforce the 2019 Arbitral Award. In essence, ConocoPhillips aimed to garnish or levy funds that the Government of Guyana owes to the Government of Venezuela under the Petrocaribe Agreement to settle this debt.
The Hon. Attorney General, in his submissions before the court, argued that ordinarily, such an application would be permitted without objection. However, he went to great lengths to stress that this was no ordinary situation.
Justice Persaud’s decision is multi-faceted and contains many egregious pronouncements. In this letter I seek to address one. In his decision, Justice Persaud stated that he was convinced that ConocoPhillips was entitled to have the arbitral award recognized, a judgment entered in its favour, and the award enforced in Guyana. He added that ConocoPhillips had successfully registered and enforced the award in several countries, and no lawful reason was established as to why it should not be registered and enforced in Guyana.
Does His Honour reside under a rock? Lest we forget the age-old controversy between the two South American neighbours, which in recent times has picked up steam. Venezuela has claimed two-thirds of Guyana, and over the years, the situation has escalated to the extent that Guyana filed proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Venezuela in a bid to resolve the controversy, which can have dire consequences if not addressed sensibly.
It is no secret that Venezuela has not accepted the jurisdiction of the World Court and has blatantly disregarded the rulings of the institution. It is public knowledge that Venezuela recently passed a referendum and took steps toward attempting to invade Guyana in a bid to annex the Essequibo region. Venezuela’s plans include converting Guyanese in the county of Essequibo into Venezuelan nationals and enacting legislation to facilitate the results of its referendum. We have also seen across social media platforms photos and videos of a heavy military presence in close proximity to the borders.
In a report published in May this year, the Washington-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warned that the Venezuelan government continues to play “a dangerous game” with its claim over the densely forested Essequibo region.
“The constant drumbeat asserting ‘the Essequibo is ours,’ alongside the creation of new military commands and legal structures to oversee the defence of the region, is helping to institutionalise a sense of perpetual pre-war footing,” it wrote.
With clear sight of Venezuela’s push to assert its claim through actions such as the referendum, Guyana requested provisional measures from the International Court of Justice. The court unanimously indicated provisional measures, including that both parties refrain from any action that might aggravate or extend the dispute. This did not stop the referendum.
Then came the meeting between President Ali and President Maduro in St. Vincent, which birthed the Argyle Declaration. It was reported that Maduro took with him on that trip a bundle of Guyanese news reports and other material to argue that Guyana was basically “selling out” to the Americans. Importantly, much like the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, the Argyle Declaration, signed by both leaders, requires both countries to refrain from taking actions that could escalate tensions or worsen the controversy.
Now, let good sense prevail. Is this an ordinary situation between the two countries? Justice Persaud found that ConocoPhillips had successfully registered and enforced the award in the United Kingdom, United States, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Trinidad, the Netherlands, and Portugal. Which of these countries is in the same situation with Venezuela as Guyana? Again, let good sense prevail.
Editor, here’s a thought-provoking scenario for readers to consider: John and his neighbour Jane are in conflict because Jane claims that John’s fence is on her land. It also happens that John owes Jane a significant amount of money. Jane, known for being difficult, is also in a dispute with her cousin Joe, to whom she owes money. To settle Jane’s debt, John gives Joe the money that Jane owes him. Furious and frustrated, Jane believes this is a coordinated effort between her two adversaries to target her. She lashes out, tearing down John’s fence. Joe is paid and unbothered, while John is left to suffer the consequences. Again, let good sense prevail.
Yours truly,
Neel Kamal
