Dear Editor,
Joel Bhagwandin’s latest attack on Nigel Hughes is not the product of “critical deconstruction”, it reads more like a frustrated man’s attempt to chip away at a class, intellect, and credibility that he has spent years trying, and failing, to curate for himself. It is the work of a man who cannot stand in the same room as Hughes’ class, intellect, and credibility without feeling diminished. This is the same Bhagwandin who, by his own admission, had a paid PR contract with ExxonMobil Guyana (EMGL) to provide “analytics and advocacy services” on sensitive government and political matters. What he allegedly failed to disclose to the public while posturing as an independent commentator is that he was being paid to defend Exxon in the media, even as he now accuses Hughes of conflicts of interest.
In Bhagwandin’s own words, he went so far as to advise ExxonMobil to terminate its relationship with Hughes’ law firm or, at minimum, to “ring-fence” their work so that Hughes had nothing to do with the EMGL portfolio. Who does this moron think he is? This is not principled advocacy, this is an operative attempting to eliminate a political opponent under the cover of “anti-corruption” language, all while cashing Exxon’s cheques.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Bhagwandin has attacked Hughes for representing clients, which is exactly what competent attorneys do, yet he himself was in a paid relationship to represent Exxon’s interests in the public arena. The difference? Hughes never pretended his professional work was something else. Bhagwandin, on the other hand, cloaked his Exxon contract behind a façade of independent analysis while churning out op-eds and television appearances that just happened to align with Exxon’s talking points and the PPP government’s interests.
To be clear, Nigel Hughes’ professional standing and political leadership are rooted in decades of legal expertise, public service, and the courage to take on complex national issues. Representing Exxon or Booker Tate in a legal capacity does not make Hughes “anti-national”; it makes him a capable lawyer trusted with high-stakes cases. Bhagwandin’s PR relationship with Exxon, and his undisclosed advocacy on their behalf, makes his attacks on Hughes not only hollow but tainted by the very conflict-of-interest standard he pretends to uphold.
Even inside the PPP, Bhagwandin is regarded with suspicion. His endless public and often ill-informed defenses of the government have yielded him no real influence and no enduring allies. Jagdeo is wary of this penchant of his, to betray former allies. The pattern is familiar, get close, exploit the relationship for personal relevance, and when it suits him, undermine those who once tolerated him. The lesson is simple, Bhagwandin will betray you and undermine your mission.
Nigel Hughes remains a figure of substance, a leader with the intellectual range, legal mastery, and independence to navigate Guyana’s most pressing governance challenges. Bhagwandin remains what he has always been, a political mercenary looking for the next paymaster, attacking his betters in the hope that some of their stature might rub off on him.
Guyana needs serious leadership grounded in skill, integrity, and vision. It does not need lectures from a man whose moral compass points to whoever signs the contract.
Randy Gopaul
