I have carefully examined the Guyana Development Bank Act 2026, particularly Part III, Section 7, which deals with the Board of Directors. The legislation establishes the Bank as a public institution intended to expand access to financing for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Act was passed by the National Assembly on 27 July 2026 and assented to by President Irfaan Ali on 30 July 2026.
The stated objective of the Guyana Development Bank is commendable. Guyanese entrepreneurs, farmers, small businesses, women, young people and communities that struggle to obtain traditional financing should have access to affordable capital. The Government has announced loans of up to G$3 million without collateral and interest, with an initial capital injection reported at approximately US$100 million.
But the governance structure raises a fundamental question:
Who will control this money?
Section 7 Should Concern Every Guyanese
Section 7 provides that the Bank shall be governed by a Board of Directors consisting of between five and nine directors appointed by the Minister. It further provides that the Minister appoints the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and other directors, based on qualifications and experience in finance, economics, banking and law.
This means the Minister responsible for Finance has the power to determine the leadership of this important financial institution.
That is where Parliament must have a serious national conversation.
A development bank controlling billions of dollars in public resources cannot be treated like an ordinary government department. It must be protected from political influence, patronage and conflicts of interest.
My concern is not the concept of a Development Bank. I support the idea of a genuine Guyana Development Bank. What I cannot support is a governance model in which one Minister effectively determines the composition of the institution’s Board.
When billions of dollars in public money are placed under an institution, there must be strong checks and balances.
The Government has stated that the Bank will have an authorised capital of G$40 billion, with substantial public financing committed to its establishment.
That is precisely why Guyanese citizens should demand the highest standards of transparency, accountability and independence.
Otherwise, instead of being known as the Guyana Development Bank, critics may come to regard it as the “Corruption Development Bank”—not because the Act itself establishes corruption, but because excessive political control over public financial resources can create opportunities for patronage and abuse.
I am not alleging that any particular director will engage in corruption. The concern is that the structure should reduce opportunities for political interference and conflicts of interest before problems arise.
Parliamentary Oversight Is Needed
My proposal is straightforward.
The appointment of the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and Directors should not rest solely with the Minister.
Nominees should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny and require approval by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.
That would require meaningful support beyond the governing party and create a stronger incentive to select individuals whose professional qualifications, integrity and independence can withstand public scrutiny.
This is what democratic checks and balances are supposed to achieve.
Parliament is not merely a place where Government introduces legislation. It is also an institution of oversight, accountability and protection of the public interest.
If the Bank is genuinely intended to serve all Guyanese, its Board should command confidence across the political spectrum.
Guyana has already seen how the control of public resources can become politically sensitive, including debates surrounding the Natural Resource Fund. The country should learn from its institutional history rather than repeat weaknesses in governance.
Public Money Must Remain Public Money
A development bank should not become a vehicle through which Government supporters, politically connected businesses or elites obtain preferential access to public financing.
The rules must be transparent.
The Government’s own description of the Bank emphasises that it will serve small businesses and underserved groups. Those people must never be placed at the mercy of political connections.
The people’s money must remain the people’s money.
The Guyana Development Bank will operate with public resources. Every dollar entrusted to it must therefore be treated as the people’s money—not the Government’s money, not the Minister’s money and certainly not the money of any political party or political elite.
The PPP Government should welcome stronger parliamentary oversight if it genuinely believes the institution will operate transparently.
If the Government believes its nominees are competent, qualified and independent, there should be no fear of submitting those nominees to Parliament for scrutiny and requiring a two-thirds majority.
Transparency should not frighten a government that has nothing to hide.
Build an Institution That Outlives Governments
The creation of a development bank can be an important instrument for economic development. But the institution will be judged not merely by the loans it distributes.
It will be judged by how those loans are approved, who receives them, who controls the institution and whether every Guyanese has an equal opportunity to benefit.
I therefore call for Section 7 of the Guyana Development Bank Act to be reconsidered and strengthened.
The appointment of the Board should involve Parliament. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson should not simply be political appointments. The Board should be professionally qualified, independent and publicly accountable.
No government—this government or any future government—should have unchecked control over a public financial institution holding billions of dollars belonging to the people of Guyana.
If Guyana is serious about democracy, good governance and accountability, it must build institutions that can survive governments—not institutions that serve governments.
Guyana needs a Development Bank that belongs to the people.
Anything less risks turning a promising national institution into another instrument of political patronage.
