Policy Forum Guyana (PFG) has issued a strong rebuttal to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ claim that it “appointed itself” to oversee the selection of civil society representatives to the Guyana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GYEITI). In a detailed statement, PFG asserted that its involvement was formally initiated in 2016 by then Minister Raphael Trotman, and continued with transparency and consistency ever since.
According to PFG, “claims that PFG was ‘formally appointed’ by this government in 2021 are inaccurate,” as no official re-appointment was ever communicated. The group maintained it operated under standing practice and the MSG Policy Manual, which allows sector groups to nominate their own representatives, with the minister responsible for confirming appointments.
The issue escalated when, after months of silence following PFG’s submission of new MSG civic nominees in April 2025, it was revealed that the Minister had instead appointed Komal Singh of the Private Sector Commission to manage the process—without informing PFG or the wider civil society sector. “If the intention was genuinely transparent, the Ministry could have informed civil society at the outset,” the group stated, questioning why the decision was kept secret.
PFG also challenged the Ministry’s suggestion that reimbursing newspaper ads constituted adequate resourcing, calling it “misleading, dismissive, and undermining” of the unpaid work performed by part-time staff. The organization reiterated that effective MSG selection requires substantial infrastructure, public outreach, and procedural integrity.
In defense of its legitimacy, PFG pointed to the public nomination process advertised in January, outreach that reached nearly 20,000 people—mostly youth—and the oversight of a respected independent selection committee. PFG emphasized that it acted “transparently, responsibly, and in the best interest of the EITI process.”
The group warned that the dispute signals broader concerns about political interference in civil society representation and could jeopardize Guyana’s already low standing in international transparency evaluations. Guyana ranked among the lowest in the Caribbean on the recent EITI validation, “fully meeting” only 7 of 34 criteria, compared to Trinidad and Tobago’s 89/100 score.
“Why was the Minister’s selection kept secret?” PFG asked, criticizing evasive responses and the lack of formal communication. It has since referred the matter to the EITI International Board in line with global protocol.
“Constructive dialogue, timely communication, and respect for established procedures are essential to maintaining the credibility of GYEITI,” PFG concluded, reaffirming its commitment to transparent governance and civil society participation.
See full statement below-
Policy Forum Guyana Responds to Ministry of Natural Resources Statement on GYEITI Civic Representatives
Policy Forum Guyana (PFG) wishes to respond to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ August 27, 2025, statement concerning the Guyana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GYEITI). The Ministry claimed that PFG “appointed itself” as convenor for civil society representatives, but the facts demonstrate otherwise.
- Appointment History
In 2016, then Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Raphael Trotman, formally requested that PFG manage the selection of civil society representatives to the GYEITI Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG). Since that time, PFG has carried out this role transparently, submitting nominees who were routinely accepted and appointed by the Permanent Secretary and Minister.
According to sections 5.4 and 6 of the MSG Policy Manual, the Minister makes and unmakes the appointments, following nomination by the respective stakeholder groups.
When the government changed in August 2020, no communication was ever sent to PFG indicating that our services were no longer required. We therefore continued the process as we had done since 2017. Claims that PFG was “formally appointed” by this government in 2021 are inaccurate. PFG has never received a formal appointment from this administration; we followed the established practice of completing the selection process and submitting nominees, according to section 5.4 of the MSG Policy Manual (May 2024).
- Events in 2025
Because the FY2022 report, approved by the MSG, remained unpublished due to delays by the EITI Champion in uploading it to the website, the outgoing MSG technically remained active even into December 2024. As a result, civic members waited until January 2025 to initiate the selection process for new MSG representatives, ensuring that the transition followed proper procedural timelines and respected the authority of the sitting MSG. In January 2025, PFG publicly advertised the application process, selected nominees, and submitted the final list to the Minister on April 9. For months, there was no response from the Ministry. On July 4, 2025, PFG issued a press release highlighting the lack of government response, published in Stabroek News:
Policy Forum sounds alarm over state of transparency body for extractive industries
It was only after six months of silence that PFG learned the Minister, as EITI Champion, had appointed Mr. Komal Singh of the Private Sector Commission to oversee the civic selection process. This appointment was never communicated to PFG during the selection period. If the intention was genuinely transparent, the Ministry could have informed civil society at the outset, avoiding confusion and sidelining an independent organization.
The EITI Standard and the GYEITI MSG Policy Manual include the following guidelines on the appointment of the MSG:
- “The MSG must remain independent and free from political or other interference.” (Standard 4.1)
- “Civil society representatives must be selected through an open and transparent process agreed by civil society stakeholders.” (Standard 5.4)
- “The Minister may appoint nominees only on the basis of sector nominations.” (Standard 5.5)
We ask the Ministry of Natural Resources to explain the rationale for appointing the head of a private-sector construction company to oversee the selection of the Civic component of the MSG. The private sector is one of the three groups represented on the MSG, alongside government and civic. No one sector does not dominates or oversees the other two sectors.
- Resourcing of the Process
Selecting civic representatives is not a simple administrative task; it is a comprehensive process requiring:
- Dedicated staff to manage and store applications,
- A separate email account specifically for this process to ensure independence from PFG’s other project work,
- Convening a selection committee,
- Organizing and conducting interviews, and
- Facilitating consensus among civil society groups.
All of this work has been carried out almost entirely by PFG’s part-time staff, without compensation, in addition to ongoing project duties. While the Ministry has reimbursed newspaper advertisements in past cycles, to suggest that this represents adequate resourcing is misleading, dismissive, and undermines the contributions of civil society organizations.
Section 3.4 of the MSG Policy Manual makes the Minister responsible for the mobilization of resources for EITI implementation. Paying for “all costs related to advertisements” was therefore not an act of kindness by the Ministry of Natural Resources, but an obligation.
- Public Engagement, Transparency, and Good Faith
The attempt by the Minister of Natural Resources to denigrate PFG is a shameful distortion of the truth and, in part, completely false. PFG was originally selected in 2016, and while we do not challenge the Ministry’s right to appoint another organization, such a decision should be made transparently.
The lack of communication regarding Mr. Singh’s appointment, coupled with unfounded public accusations against PFG (according to the DPI, a “gross violation and disregard for the established procedure”), threatens the independence of civil society and the integrity of the GYEITI process.
The PFG process for the selection of nominees was as follows:
- Public Solicitation of Nominations:Published in Stabroek News on January 21, 2025: Applying to become a member of the GYEITI MSG.
- Social Media Outreach:The call for nominations was boosted on social media, reaching 19,016 viewers, 96% of whom were non-followers, demonstrating extensive public awareness.
- Demographic Reach:71.4% of viewers were under 35, reflecting active youth engagement, with gender-balanced visibility (42.8% women and 28.6% men).
The entire process benefitted from independent oversight by a committee of respected citizens.
Policy Forum Guyana has always acted transparently, responsibly, and in the best interest of the EITI process. Constructive dialogue, timely communication, and respect for established procedures are essential to maintaining the credibility of GYEITI, both locally and internationally. The Ministerial response, as conveyed through the Department of Public Information, is factually incorrect and contrary to the collegiate approach of EITI globally.
PFG was not “re-appointed” in 2021 or at any point since. Indeed, in November 2024, during an email exchange with the Permanent Secretary on re-appointment, PFG could and should have been informed of its replacement. Instead, the Government encouraged a complex process to be completed before secretly replacing PFG.
Why was the Minister’s selection kept secret? When asked directly at the recent Biodiversity Conference about the process, why did the Champion not say he had exercised his right by appointing Komal Singh? Instead, he deflected the conversation by saying, “after the elections.” Such evasions do not demonstrate transparency.
The Ministry’s suggestion that reimbursing press ads equates to resourcing the process is equally misleading. PFG never sought reimbursement for the significant time and effort invested in a national process of this nature. To dismiss that work is to dismiss civil society’s role in EITI Validation.
- International Implications
This dispute cannot be divorced from the broader context of Guyana’s poor performance in international transparency rankings. In both the latest Transparency International assessment and the EITI Validation exercise, Guyana ranked at the bottom among Caribbean member countries.
- Trinidad and Tobago scored 89/100.
- Even Suriname, which only joined EITI in 2017 (the same year as Guyana), has outperformed Guyana.
- Out of 34 criteria, GYEITI was assessed as “fully met” on only seven.
This poor performance is not a reflection of the quality of GYEITI Reports, but rather the result of government overreach and excessive control of the process.
According to the EITI Civil Society Protocol (3.2), disputes of this nature must be referred to the International Board. MSG-Civic has adhered to this procedure.
- PFG’s Commitment
PFG has consistently acted in good faith, transparently and responsibly, in the best interest of the EITI process. We remain committed to ensuring that civil society voices are represented. Constructive dialogue, timely communication, and respect for established procedures are essential if Guyana’s EITI is to regain credibility.
