Ramsaroop Raises Alarm Over Gov’t Secretive Power Deal with InterEnergy

In an incisive analysis, published in today’s letter to the editor, Opposition Member of Parliament Ricky Ramsaroop has sounded the alarm over a proposed agreement between the Government of Guyana and InterEnergy, warning that the deal threatens national sovereignty, lacks transparency, and could burden taxpayers while giving full control of the country’s energy infrastructure to a foreign entity.

The proposed deal—leaked to the public and now tacitly confirmed by diplomatic sources—would see InterEnergy assume sweeping authority over GPL and PPDI, the country’s major power generation and distribution bodies. According to Ramsaroop, the terms of the draft agreement represent a dangerous precedent.

“This proposal, if confirmed, raises critical concerns about sovereignty, transparency, and long-term national benefit,” Ramsaroop stated. “Guyana would assume all financial liabilities while relinquishing operational authority—an unsustainable and inequitable arrangement.”

Key Red Flags Identified in the Draft Agreement

Ramsaroop’s analysis outlined five major concerns in the proposed contract:

1. Procurement Violations: The agreement appears to bypass national procurement laws by allowing InterEnergy to handpick contractors without any competitive process or independent oversight.
2. No Capital Investment from InterEnergy: Despite gaining control, InterEnergy would make no upfront financial investment. Instead, taxpayers would shoulder all operational and capital costs.
3. Total Technical Control: The foreign firm would gain unrestricted authority over technical decisions—without mention of any third-party monitoring or accountability mechanisms.
4. Risk of Cronyism in Contracting: By giving InterEnergy **autonomy to select its own contractors—including affiliated companies—**the deal could sideline local businesses and skew procurement in favor of foreign interests.
5. Taxpayer-Funded Severance: Should existing GPL or PPDI staff be displaced, the Government would foot the severance bill, again transferring private benefit into public cost.

Company’s Troubled Record Abroad

Ramsaroop also cited international media reports to question InterEnergy’s credibility. In Jamaica, electricity outages reportedly rose over 300% under InterEnergy’s oversight (Jamaica Gleaner, 2024). In the Dominican Republic, the company’s CEO, Rolando Gonzalez Bunster, was investigated for fraud by ADOCCO (Dominican Today, 2013), while in Panama, InterEnergy faced scrutiny over suspicious transactions involving state assets (Univision, 2017).

“Such precedents warrant cautious and comprehensive vetting,” Ramsaroop stressed, “before entrusting critical national infrastructure to a company with a controversial global footprint.”

Diplomatic Confirmation and Government Silence

In a twist that validated public concern, the Ambassador of the Dominican Republic to Guyana, in a June 11, 2025 statement published in Stabroek News, appeared to confirm the legitimacy of the leaked InterEnergy agreement—even while attempting to defend the company.

“That public statement inadvertently confirmed key components of the deal that had never been formally released,” Ramsaroop pointed out. “It exposed the Government’s failure to proactively disclose or clarify the terms of a deal that affects every Guyanese household.”

Despite the mounting questions, the Government of Guyana has remained silent, neither confirming nor denying the contract, nor offering any explanation to Parliament or the public.

Demands for Transparency and Oversight

Ramsaroop has called for the agreement to be scrapped or radically revised, and demanded that any future arrangement adhere to basic principles of good governance:

• Full public disclosure and consultation
• Competitive international tendering
• Independent technical and financial evaluations
• Parliamentary scrutiny and approval

“Guyana’s energy future must be built on partnerships that are transparent, accountable, and aligned with national interests,” he concluded. “Not rushed backroom deals that jeopardise public assets and democratic processes.”

The controversy should serve as a wake-up call in a society where many are struggling to make ends meet, while greedy businesses—enabled by a complicit government—continue to exploit them with impunity.