By Mark DaCosta- The People’s National Congress Reform’s (PNCR) proposed lease of a portion of the Congress Place compound for a hotel development has raised a fundamental question that goes beyond the legal distinction between a lease and a sale: at what point does a long-term lease become, in practical terms, a transfer of control over property?
A Guyanese analyst who is also a member of the PNCR believes that question must now be confronted openly.
PNCR General Secretary Sherwin Benjamin has rejected suggestions that Congress Place is being sold, maintaining that the headquarters has not been sold and will not be sold. The reported arrangement involves leasing the northern portion of the Sophia property for a proposed hotel development, as part of an effort to generate income from party-owned assets. The PNCR has said its business arm, Maikwak Limited, is being used to monetise party properties.
But according to the analyst, describing the transaction as a “lease” does not by itself resolve the substantive issue.
“This is not a lease for a little shop where everybody understands that the arrangement might run for one year, five years or perhaps even ten years,” the analyst said. “This is a hotel development. The commercial realities are entirely different.”
A hotel investor would have to recover the substantial cost of construction, financing, operations, maintenance and other expenditure. The investor would also expect to generate a profit.
That makes the duration of the proposed arrangement critical.
The precise term of the proposed lease has not been publicly disclosed. The analyst believes, however, that a hotel development of this nature would likely require a very lengthy tenure, potentially several decades or even a century.
“If the lease is for such a lengthy period that the investor can recover the construction cost, operate the hotel, maintain the facility and make a substantial profit, then we have to ask what meaningful difference remains between that arrangement and a sale,” the analyst said.
The implications become even more significant when considered across generations.
If the lease were to run for 100 years or more, virtually no adult alive today would be alive when it expired. The party could therefore retain legal ownership on paper while generations of its members were effectively deprived of practical control over a substantial portion of the property.
“It follows logically that an arrangement of that nature could be construed as a de facto sale,” the analyst said. “The name attached to the transaction may be ‘lease’, but the practical consequence could be that the party has surrendered the use and control of a substantial part of Congress Place for generations.”
The consultation question
The analyst argues that another issue may be even more consequential: consultation and accountability within the party.
The proposed transaction has emerged while the PNCR General Council has not met since the 2025 general elections. Benjamin has said the council is expected to meet before the end of 2026 and that decisions taken by the Central Executive will be presented for discussion and ratification.
The analyst questions whether a decision with potentially multi-generational consequences for one of the PNCR’s most important properties should proceed before the party’s wider representative structures and membership have had an opportunity to examine it.
“This is not an ordinary commercial transaction involving some unused piece of land somewhere,” the analyst said. “This is Congress Place. If you are going to commit part of that property to a hotel for decades, potentially for a century or more, then the membership has a right to know what is being contemplated and under what terms.”
The analyst also rejects the argument that the matter concerns only the PNCR and therefore has no relevance beyond the party.
“To those defenders of the current leadership who say this is party business and does not concern anyone outside the PNCR, they are horribly wrong and terribly misguided,” the analyst said.
A property with political history
Congress Place is associated with the December 14, 1974 special congress of the People’s National Congress at Sophia, where Forbes Burnham delivered what became known as the Declaration of Sophia. Historical records describe the declaration as a major political and institutional turning point, including the formal advancement of the doctrine of party paramountcy.
“What happened at Congress Place helped shape Guyana’s post-independence political landscape,” the analyst said. “The consequences of the Declaration of Sophia did not stop at the boundaries of the PNCR or the PNC. They affected the country as a whole and continue to influence the way Guyanese understand our political history.”
That history, the analyst argues, gives any fundamental transformation of the property a significance beyond its commercial value.
This does not necessarily mean the PNCR should be prevented from generating income from its assets. The party has legitimate financial responsibilities, and commercialising underused property could provide revenue. The costs of maintaining large properties, including rates and taxes, also cannot simply be ignored.
The critical questions are therefore what exactly is being leased, for how long, on what terms, with whose approval, and what control will the PNCR retain after the agreement is signed?
“If the party is merely leasing land for a reasonable period while retaining genuine control and ownership, that is one thing,” the analyst said. “But if the arrangement effectively places the land beyond the practical control of the party for generations, then Guyanese are entitled to regard it as something far more consequential than an ordinary lease.”
The controversy is therefore unlikely to be settled simply by repeating that Congress Place is not being sold.
The substantive issue is whether the proposed arrangement preserves the practical substance of ownership, while giving PNCR members and the wider public sufficient information to understand the long-term implications of the deal.
