The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government is promoting its proposed Guyana Development Bank as a major boost for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), but provisions contained in the legislation tabled in the National Assembly have already raised concerns about transparency, accountability and political control over billions of dollars in public funds.
Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, on Friday presented the Guyana Development Bank Bill 2026, which seeks to establish a state-owned development bank offering loans of up to $3 million to small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Government has marketed the initiative as one that will provide zero-interest financing with no collateral required, while pairing borrowers with mentorship and training programmes to help grow their businesses.
However, the legislation appears to provide the bank with broad discretion over whether collateral will be required and whether interest will be charged.
Section 5(2) of the Bill states that the bank may assist SMEs by providing loans “with or without collateral and with or without charging interest.”
The proposed law does not specify which categories of borrowers will qualify for collateral-free or interest-free financing, nor does it establish limits on interest rates that may be imposed.
The concerns extend beyond lending criteria.
The Bill proposes an initial capitalisation of $40 billion, approximately US$200 million, to be managed by a Board of Directors appointed entirely by the Finance Minister.
Under the legislation, the board will comprise between five and nine directors, all selected by the minister, who will also appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson and determine the remuneration and allowances paid to directors.
Notably absent is any provision for representation from the parliamentary Opposition, civil society, the private sector, transparency bodies or anti-corruption organisations.
The absence of independent oversight raises questions about who will monitor the allocation of billions of dollars in loans and whether financing decisions could become vulnerable to political influence.
The concentration of such significant financial authority in the hands of ministerial appointees is likely to generate concern in a country where politics remains deeply polarised and where allegations of political discrimination in the allocation of state resources have long featured in public discourse.
Governance advocates have long argued that development banks and similar institutions function best when insulated from political influence and supported by broad-based oversight mechanisms. Such safeguards help ensure that lending decisions are based on merit, economic viability and developmental impact rather than political affiliation, personal connections or electoral considerations.
The absence of representation from Opposition and independent institutions is therefore likely to fuel perceptions that access to financing could become uneven or subject to political considerations. Even if no such conduct occurs, the lack of independent scrutiny may undermine public confidence in the institution from its inception.
The Board will also be empowered to appoint the bank’s Chief Executive Officer and establish committees to oversee matters within its competence.
Questions have also emerged regarding eligibility requirements.
While the bank is being promoted as a vehicle to support Guyanese entrepreneurs, the legislation does not explicitly restrict financing to Guyanese citizens or locally owned businesses.
Part V of the Bill provides only broad eligibility criteria, stating that applicants must submit “such information, documents and statutory declarations as may be prescribed or required by the Bank.”
Section 25 further states that the bank will develop its own written credit policies governing eligibility, risk assessment, approval thresholds, monitoring and recovery procedures.
Those policies are not included in the legislation.
The Bill has also drawn scrutiny over its provisions dealing with misconduct and accountability.
While the proposed law creates offences for providing false information, obstructing the bank, falsifying records, improperly disclosing confidential information and wilfully misusing bank funds, it contains no specific provisions addressing unauthorised withdrawals, conflicts of interest or corrupt practices by officials involved in approving loans.
Persons found guilty of offences under the Act could face fines ranging from $5 million to $10 million.
The legislation does provide for annual audits by the Auditor General, with annual reports and audited financial statements to be tabled in the National Assembly.
Whether the Guyana Development Bank becomes a catalyst for entrepreneurship or a source of controversy over the management of public resources may ultimately depend on the safeguards put in place before the legislation is approved.
Governance advocates and transparency proponents contend the issue is not whether Guyana needs a development bank, but whether sufficient protections exist to ensure that billions of dollars intended to stimulate business growth are distributed fairly, transparently and free from political interference.
