A sharp war of words has erupted between Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha and former Finance Minister Winston Jordan over the future direction of Guyana’s rice sector, revealing not only deep policy differences but long-standing political fault lines. Jordan was Finance Minister in the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition government (2015-2020).
The clash stems from remarks made by Jordan on the online programme ‘Countdown’ hosted by Andrew Weeks, where he suggested that in light of current global market conditions, marginal rice farmers should be supported to transition into other forms of agriculture. The comments triggered a fierce rebuke from Mustapha, who labelled the suggestion “reckless” and accused Jordan of showing “deep disregard” for the thousands of families who depend on rice production.
“This is a far cry from Mr. Jordan’s proposal to push small farmers out of the industry and effectively abandon them,” Mustapha said in a letter released September 30.
“The [People’s Progressive Party/Civic] PPP/C Government will not abandon rice farmers. Instead, it is investing in infrastructure, research, and diversification to ensure that Guyana’s rice industry emerges stronger and more resilient in the face of global challenges.”
Mustapha defended the government’s recent support measures for rice producers, citing initiatives such as expanding national storage capacity to stockpile up to five million tonnes of rice, developing new high-yield rice varieties, and introducing alternative income sources like crab cage farming to reduce risk and improve cash flow for farmers.
Jordan: “Market Reality Must Guide Policy”
Jordan, in a detailed response, maintained that his comments were taken out of context and that his proposals were grounded in current global realities, not political expediency.
“Did I ask the government to abandon rice farmers?” Jordan asked. “If Mustapha is referring to my reference to marginal farmers being assisted to transition to other crops, that can be considered to be neither reckless nor abandonment.”
According to Jordan, the international rice market is currently experiencing a supply glut that has depressed prices. He argued that encouraging increased production in such a climate would only worsen the situation unless Guyana can invest in large-scale storage infrastructure or capture excess production through value-added processing — options currently limited.
He also cited a range of existing government concessions to rice farmers — from duty-free equipment and free fertiliser to cash transfers and subsidies — and warned that adding further subsidies would constitute a “total misuse of taxpayers’ money.”
“It made little sense to ask rice farmers to produce more under current conditions,” Jordan said. “The government must ‘level’ with farmers.”
He pointed out that the head of the Guyana Rice Producers Association, Lekha Rambrich, had also recently urged farmers to scale back production — validating his own position.
Revisiting the Venezuela Rice Deal
Jordan also used the exchange to revisit a contentious chapter in the sector’s recent history: the collapse of the lucrative PetroCaribe rice deal with Venezuela in 2015 — a development he claims was mishandled by the previous PPP/C government.
“On the campaign trail for the 2015 elections, the PPP/C had intimated to farmers that they had secured a new rice contract with Venezuela,” Jordan recalled.
The APNU+AFC coalition won the May 2025 National Elections.
Jordan said that in a meeting on June 30, 2015, with Venezuela’s then Minister of Petroleum and Mining, Asdrubal Chavez, he learned that Venezuela had no intention of renewing the deal. According to the former finance minister, both PDV Caribe and PDVSA had already communicated this to Guyanese officials under the previous administration, citing self-sufficiency in local rice production.
Jordan argued that these developments — along with El Niño-induced weather challenges — contributed to a production drop in 2016. However, he noted a 12.7% rebound in 2017 and continued increases through 2018 and 2019, crediting the Coalition’s efforts to secure new rice markets in Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America.
“The Coalition government worked tirelessly to secure new markets… including Cuba and Haiti, with measurable success,” he said.
Political Baggage and Competing Narratives
The public spat has also reignited partisan claims about each party’s stewardship of the rice sector.
Mustapha accused the former APNU+AFC administration of leaving rice farmers to “fend for themselves” during the Panama payment dispute and of espousing the view that “rice is a private business.” He contrasted this with the current administration’s active support of the industry through infrastructure, research, and farmer consultation.
Jordan fired back that Mustapha was leaning on what he described as “Goebbelian truth” — propaganda repeated until believed — and accused the PPP/C of failing to account for the depletion of the PetroCaribe Fund, which he said contained less than US$800,000 when the Coalition took office in 2015, with over US$71 million owed to rice farmers and millers.
“The Coalition was left to find the funds to pay the outstanding balance,” he wrote. “This was in addition to the $12 billion that also had to be found to bail out the insolvent sugar industry — another legacy failure of the PPP/C government.”
Jordan also criticised the dismantling of the RAID (Rural Agricultural Infrastructure Development) Project, which he said was designed to return thousands of acres of land in predominantly Afro-Guyanese communities to cultivation.
“Today, one can only lament the waste of a project whose success would have seen 2,500 acres of abandoned lands back into cultivation,” he said.
The Path Forward
At the core of this dispute lies a difficult policy question: Should Guyana double down on rice production in hopes of weathering the market storm — or adopt a more cautious, market-aligned approach, even if it means asking some small farmers to change course?
Mustapha and the PPP/C believe in expansion, modernisation, and investment. Jordan argues for realism, warning that throwing more money at uncompetitive production could create long-term economic liabilities.
What is not in dispute is the importance of the rice industry to Guyana’s economy and rural livelihoods. As global prices fluctuate and trade routes shift, the path forward will require more than political point-scoring — it will demand data-driven decisions, frank conversations with farmers, and a clear-eyed view of Guyana’s place in the global market.
