Dear Editor
The Attorney General’s recent remarks abroad portraying the PPP/C Government as a serious and effective fighter against corruption do not withstand scrutiny when measured against Guyana’s actual record in law, institutions, and outcomes.
Fighting corruption is not demonstrated by speeches, workshops, or treaty signatures. It is demonstrated by laws enacted, institutions empowered, cases investigated, assets recovered, and officials held accountable. On these metrics, the government’s record is deeply deficient.
Guyana is a signatory to multiple international anti-corruption instruments, including the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and Inter-American anti-corruption agreements.Yet, many of the core recommendations flowing from these treaties remain unimplemented. Guyana still lacks comprehensive whistleblower protection, has no modern offence of illicit enrichment, no regulation of political financing, weak conflict-of-interest rules, and no unified anti-corruption statute. Signing treaties without domestic implementation is not reform, it is performative compliance.
Most telling is the government’s decision in 2020 to shut down the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA), the only body with a clear mandate to trace, seize, and recover stolen public assets. No replacement institution was created.Since then, there has been no systematic asset recovery regime, no public accounting of illicit wealth seized, and no explanation as to how dismantling an enforcement agency strengthens the anti-corruption fight.
At the same time, Guyana’s performance on international corruption and governance indices has not improved during the PPP/C’s tenure. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index and the World Bank’s governance indicators continue to reflect weak control of corruption, limited enforcement, and low institutional trust. If the government’s anti-corruption strategy were effective, these indicators would show sustained improvement. They do not.
Frameworks and the signing of treaties do not mean that the institutions that do exist are vibrant and adequately resourced to get the job done. The reality is that any framework that exists is overcome by fragmentation and inertia. Oversight bodies exist on paper but are underpowered, under-resourced, or unconstituted. Asset declarations are required by law but weakly enforced. Auditor General’s findings repeatedly identify irregularities, yet prosecutions are rare. Allegations involving senior officials persist, yet accountability remains elusive.It is therefore disingenuous for members of this government to present Guyana as a model of anti-corruption commitment on the international stage while, at home, key institutions are dismantled, constitutional commissions remain inactive, and core legislative reforms are avoided.
If the government is serious about fighting corruption, the path forward is clear:
enact a modern, consolidated Prevention of Corruption Act;
restore or replace SARA with a truly independent asset-recovery and anti-corruption agency;
implement whistleblower protection and political finance regulation;
fully operationalise constitutional oversight bodies; and demonstrate results through investigations, prosecutions, and recovered assets. Until then, claims of robust anti-corruption governance amount to rhetoric, not reality. The international community deserves honesty, and the people of Guyana deserve institutions that work.
Yours truly
Tabitha Sarabo-Halley MP
