Dear Editor,
As I analyse the Guyanese society and Guyana as an evolving regional and global ‘power’ with its new status as an oil producing country, it is more critical now than ever before, that politics, law and business continue to run on separate tracks. However, what we are witnessing is an unprecedented blurring of the lines between politics, law and business. There have been efforts by the government to deliberately bring politics, law and business on one track or blur the lines. This happens in the amendment of laws, the development of new laws and in practice – whether by-passing or ignoring laws in pursuit of political goals and objectives, among others. However, this approach is widening gaps in development and growth and creates a society where inequalities, injustices, prejudices and discrimination become the norm instead of the exception.
It also creates an environment where the wealthy can easily ignore the law or break the law because of their political connections. However, a word of caution to local and international investors and businesses; political parties are in government for a five-year term or various five-year terms, as such, if businesses and investors ignore laws based on their political connections, this is not a sustainable approach to investment and business. What happens when governments change? Laws do not change every five years. The constitution does not change every five years. The government promotes Guyana as being a good place for business and states that foreign investors are flocking to Guyana to engage in business and explore business opportunities. However, foreign investors will continue to flock to Guyana to explore business opportunities because they are protected by a rigid international investment regime which provides protection, allows for redress to issues through international dispute resolution mechanisms, etc.; as such, the blurring of the lines between politics, law and business may cause some pause, but would not entirely hinder foreign investment in Guyana.
At the opening of the Law Year in January, the Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Roxanne George-Wiltshire called for financial autonomy for the judiciary, as reported in a Stabroek News article on January 14, 2026, titled ‘Chancellor (ag) urges gov’t compliance on financial autonomy for judiciary’. In the Kaieteur New article published on January 14, 2026, and titled ‘Chancellor: Judiciary must control its funds’. This article stated that the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary ‘renewed calls for the full implementation of constitutional financial autonomy, insisting that the Judiciary must return to being a self-accounting entity free from executive interference’. The article further stated that the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Act (FMAA), passed in 2015, grants financial autonomy to constitutional agencies which makes provision for them to draw directly from the Consolidated Fund. Further, the legislation was intended to allow agencies such as the Judiciary, Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), the Service Commissions and the Office of the Ombudsman to execute their constitutional functions independently.
The need is urgent to address the issues of financial autonomy of the judiciary to secure its independence and ensure that politics, law and business remain on separate tracks. An independent judiciary is important for an oil and gas Guyana. Without an independent judiciary it is easy for gaps in inequalities, injustices, prejudices and discrimination to be widened. The judiciary is an equal arm of government, along with the executive and the legislature as such the executive and legislature should expedite measures to ensure the financial autonomy of the judiciary. An independent judiciary is critical for enabling equality in growth and development and ensuring that rights of all are being upheld.
In another Stabroek News article that was published on January 8, 2026, and titled ‘Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan raises issue of whether offices of AG, Legal Affairs Ministry should be separated’, further highlights the need for critical reflection on the separation of the office of the Attorney General and the Minister of Legal Affairs. The article stated that Dr. Ramcharan noted that a number of issues are currently besetting the country and indicated that the government is entitled to ‘clinical legal advice from an impartial source’ and raised the question as to whether that is possible in the present configuration of the Attorney General Chambers and the Ministry of Legal Affairs.
While the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs position was held by the same person across various administrations (PNC, APNU and PPP/C) Dr. Ramcharran has raised an important question for consideration, particularly, in the current Guyana context. He noted that “It is fair to pose the question whether this [clinical legal advice from an impartial source] can come from anyone who combines the positions of Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General and is at the same time one of the leading political leaders of the governing party – possibly with political ambitions of his own’. Dr. Ramcharran further stated ‘Might there be a structural problem here in Guyana that would benefit from fair-minded reflection?’.
In a Kaieteur News article on February 5, 2026, and titled ‘The promise and perils of Special Economic Zones’, the columnist Peeping Tom stated, ‘discretionary decision-making, rather than rules-based administration, deters serious investors while inviting carpet baggers. In these cases, SEZs become fiscal sinkholes rather than engines of growth’. He further stated that ‘if Guyana is to pursue SEZs at all’… ‘It must establish clear, transparent, and non-negotiable criteria governing eligibility, concessions, and duration. And critically, the entire regime must be anchored in law, not ministerial discretion’.
As we rethink, reform, reposition and reconfigure Guyana, we must develop a society that is govern by fairness, equitability, a strong and independent judiciary, and ensure that politics, law and business remain on separate tracks.
Sincerely,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas
