Opinion: Toll Removal Without a (Revenue) Replacement Plan Is Not Leadership—It’s Political Immaturity, Figueira, Bond Wrong

by Randy Gopaul
No right-thinking Guyanese would oppose reducing the daily expenses of hardworking citizens, especially in this economic climate where cost of living continues to erode household income. However, public policy, especially one with significant financial implications, demands rigorous analysis, foresight, and accountability. Abolishing tolls on Guyana’s three main bridges may seem like a populist masterstroke, but it raises more questions than answers, questions which Jermaine Figueira, unfortunately, fails to confront in his enthusiastic endorsement of the President’s announcement.

Yes, infrastructure should be a ladder out of poverty, not a barrier. But that ladder must be properly built, and funded. If the President has decided to eliminate tolls, the government must explain: Where will the lost revenue come from? What services will be cut? How many municipal jobs are at risk? What are the contingency plans for maintenance, upgrades, and safety on these key arteries of national mobility? Figueira’s failure to raise, or answer, any of these questions reflects a certain political immaturity and self-centeredness that belies his role as a representative of a community that stands to suffer the consequences.

The residents of Linden deserve relief, yes, but they also deserve clarity, consultation, and compensation. In the case of the Berbice Bridge, it is well known that investors will be fully repaid their capital plus interest. If this level of responsibility is applied to private investors, why not to the people of Linden? If the revenue stream from the Wismar/Mackenzie Bridge is being removed, where is the equivalent replacement funding for the Linden Town Council, which has depended on it to support public services and even contemplated long-overdue staff wage increases?

Figueira’s behavior is particularly troubling when one considers that the PPP regime has consistently shown itself to be vindictive, duplicitous, and racially selective in its allocation of state resources. For Figueira, a purported member of the opposition, to jump ahead of his constituents to praise the government for a decision that could cost Linden dozens of jobs and millions in local revenue, without demanding specific fiscal alternatives, is not leadership. It’s appeasement.

If the PPP were serious about equity, they would have announced not only toll elimination, but also direct financial compensation or expanded municipal subventions to bridge the gap. If this decision is being framed as “magnanimous,” then let the magnanimity extend to full replacement of lost revenues, not vague talk of future industrial zones or market spaces that may never materialize.

Leadership is not about headlines. It’s about defending the long-term interests of the people, even when it means standing up to a powerful executive. Until Jermaine Figueira and others are willing to do that, they fall short of the leadership title they claim, and worse, they risk becoming unwitting pawns in a government’s ongoing political theatre.