Foreign investors exploring Guyana’s rapidly growing economy—buoyed by one of the world’s most significant oil discoveries in recent history—must now add a new and disturbing line item to their risk assessments: “terrorism.”
This isn’t because Guyana is suddenly facing an influx of foreign fighters, extremist ideologies, or paramilitary threats. It’s because the government of Guyana is now classifying protesting citizens—some of them teenagers and bystanders—as terrorists under the country’s anti-terrorism laws.
In the aftermath of the heartbreaking death of 11-year-old Adrianna Younge, protests erupted across the country, fueled by public grief, suspicion, and frustration over how the case has been handled. The demonstrations—some of which escalated into acts of road blockages, tire burnings, and isolated looting—were swiftly met with an iron fist.
Instead of addressing the root causes of the public anger or applying proportionate charges, the Guyana Police Force, backed by the Office of the Attorney General, invoked Section 309A of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, charging more than 50 people with inciting public terror. Attorney General Anil Nandlall declared without hesitation, “We couldn’t have found a better charge.”
That chilling quote should send shockwaves far beyond Guyana’s borders.
For international investors, these developments raise legitimate questions:
- Can a government that brands dissenters as terrorists be trusted to uphold contracts, protect lawful assembly, or maintain a fair legal system?
- What happens when a business dispute turns political? Will criminal law be used as a weapon?
- How stable is an environment where the state’s response to protest is mass incarceration under terrorism statutes?
Terrorism, in global legal and financial frameworks, is no small designation. The mere mention of it can trigger compliance protocols, insurance reevaluations, and increased capital flight risk. Governments and businesses across the globe are required to treat “terrorist environments” with enhanced scrutiny under international law.
By choosing to label internal civil unrest as terrorism, the Government of Guyana may have unintentionally labeled the entire country as high-risk. Not because it truly is, but because perception shapes investment—and perception is shaped by official declarations.
Make no mistake, looting and violence should be condemned and prosecuted. But to conflate scattered incidents of unrest with terrorism is not only a misuse of law, it is political overreach with potentially devastating reputational consequences.
For now, Guyana remains one of the most promising investment destinations in the Western Hemisphere. But each headline about “terrorism charges” against civilians chips away at that promise. Investors must now ask whether their operations could someday be caught in the crossfire of a government willing to use national security laws to silence criticism and suppress protest.
If Guyana wishes to maintain its trajectory as a global energy player and development success story, it must act swiftly to restore legal proportionality, protect civil liberties, and reverse this dangerous precedent.
Until then, the term “terrorism risk” will linger, not because Guyana harbors terrorists, but because its leaders chose to invoke terrorism where none existed.
