PPP’s Anti-Corruption Promises Ring Hollow Amid PAC Paralysis and Cash Grant Secrecy

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), which has dominated Guyana’s government for nearly three decades, is campaigning on promises of stronger anti-corruption measures if re-elected, including the creation of a new anti-corruption unit and reforms to government procurement.

But critics say those pledges ring hollow given the party’s record. Under the PPP’s watch, Guyana was ranked the most corrupt English-speaking Caribbean country under President Bharrat Jagdeo, and under President Irfaan Ali, the problem has only deepened. At the same time, the government has maneuvered to block the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC)—the very body charged with scrutinising public spending—from reviewing its record over the past five years.

Transparency International in it 2024 Report noted that “although the country has created anti-corruption institutions and laws, transparency and law enforcement are very low, and attacks on dissenting voices, activists and journalists are increasingly common.”

Outgoing PAC Chairman Jermaine Figueira lamented in public statements that the committee has been unable to review audit reports since 2020, calling it “most unfortunate.” The PAC remains stuck on the 2019 Auditor General’s report, a backlog he described as a severe blow to parliamentary oversight.

According to Figueira, this paralysis was no accident. He accused government MPs of a “deliberate and consistent” strategy of absenteeism, which repeatedly caused PAC meetings to collapse for lack of quorum. He denounced the tactic as an outright attack on transparency and accountability.

Meanwhile, questions over the management of billions in cash grants continue to swirl. Former A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) minister and AFC co-founder, Attorney-at-Law Khemraj Ramjattan has been one of the fiercest critics, accusing the PPP of turning cash transfers into a vehicle for corruption and vote-buying.

Ramjattan has repeatedly demanded transparency through publication of beneficiary lists.

“We demanded from the very beginning… that the names and addresses of those that are beneficiaries of such cash grants be put up on the website of the relevant Ministry… That is transparency and accountability, it is not being done.”

He also warned that secrecy fuels suspicions of ethnic bias:

“Let it be known to the public so we can know who and who are getting it. We believe it is massive discrimination on ethnic grounds and the PPP is buying votes.”

In Parliament, he described the lack of disclosure as a breakdown of democratic governance:

“If you’re transparent, why do you not put on the website… all those people who got the flood relief… put a name and put an address and put the amount that they got… That is a transparent government [but] they don’t want to do that because corruption has started again.”

Ramjattan further blasted the practice of having PPP activists, rather than impartial officials, control disbursements:

“They have this arrangement whereby PPP activists are distributing monies… Why is it that you do not have an accountable system that states who is doing the distribution and also who are collecting?”

Despite this damning record, the PPP manifesto promises to “democratise access to government procurement opportunities,” make bidding more competitive and transparent, and “establish an anti-corruption unit” while leveraging technology like blockchain and enforcing the Access to Information Act.

But here too, the government’s credibility is in question. Chartered Accountant and Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram has long accused the PPP of sabotaging the Access to Information Act, calling it a law “treated with contempt.”

Ram has been scathing in his criticism of Commissioner of Information Charles Ramson Sr., who he says obstructs rather than enables transparency. Ram’s own 2021 request went unanswered for over a year, and the eventual reply was evasive. Worse, the Commissioner suggested applicants should not criticise him—a stance Ram said betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of accountability in public office.

He also noted that the Commission has no visible office, its work is hidden from the public, and despite receiving tens of millions annually in the budget, it has never presented accounts to Parliament as the law requires.

Frustrated by the continued lack of compliance, Ram has taken legal steps. He issued pre-action notices to both the Commissioner of Information and the Natural Resources Minister demanding the release of key petroleum sector documents. He also filed Guyana’s first judicial review case under the Act, asking the courts to order the Commissioner to enforce the law and compel disclosure.