The Ministry of Agriculture has rejected allegations by Opposition Member of Parliament Vinceroy Jordan that millions of dollars’ worth of agrochemicals have disappeared from the Guyana Sugar Corporation’s (GuySuCo) Uitvlugt Estate, citing internal inventory records that it says show no missing stock.
Jordan had called on the Government, the Ministry and GuySuCo to account for the alleged disappearance, raising concerns about the management of public resources and demanding transparency.
In a sharply worded response, the Ministry accused Jordan of making sensational and unsubstantiated allegations without producing documentary evidence. It insisted that established security and inventory procedures make the unauthorised removal of agrochemicals difficult to conceal.
According to the Ministry, herbicides are stored in a secured bond operating under a dual-locking system requiring the presence of both stores personnel and security officers. No individual can independently access the facility.
The Ministry said all chemical withdrawals require electronic requisitions approved by the Agriculture Manager, while daily issues are witnessed and recorded by stores personnel, security officers and senior estate staff.
Only one day’s supply is transferred to the operational bond, with field usage monitored and unused chemicals documented upon return. Chemicals issued to private cane farmers require additional management approvals and signed requisitions.
The Ministry identified an October 29 physical stock count, conducted jointly by stores, field supervision and security personnel, as its strongest evidence against Jordan’s allegations.
“The most recent count was conducted on Thursday, October 29. There was no variance.”
It argued that the disappearance of millions of dollars’ worth of chemicals would have been detected through the estate’s inventory system.
However, the Ministry did not release the stock-count records, inventory reconciliation reports or supporting documentation with its statement. Nor did it indicate whether an independent audit had been conducted to examine the allegations.
While a stock count showing no variance is relevant, it does not independently establish that every recorded withdrawal was authorised, properly used or supported by accurate documentation. Those questions require examination of the underlying records.
The Ministry also suggested that the allegations originated from an individual facing an internal administrative matter at the estate. It provided no details of that matter or evidence establishing that the individual’s circumstances undermined the complaint.
It nevertheless assured that no worker would be victimised for raising genuine concerns.
Significantly, the Ministry acknowledged that management had reminded security personnel of the importance of accurate record-keeping and said documentation lapses would be addressed administratively. It did not identify the nature or extent of any such lapses.
Rather than confining its response to the Uitvlugt allegations, the Ministry launched a broader attack on Jordan’s credibility, revisiting previous disputes involving alleged missing sugar at Rose Hall, the poultry industry, the Mahaica-Mahaicony-Abary Agricultural Development Authority and State lands along the Mahaicony corridor.
It also invoked the record of the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) administration, accusing the former coalition government of closing Wales, East Demerara, Rose Hall and Skeldon estates and putting 7,047 workers out of employment. The Ministry argued that the former administration’s record undermined Jordan’s criticism of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government’s management of the sugar industry.
However, employment figures contained in a 2021 International Labour Organisation (ILO)-commissioned study of the socioeconomic impact of the closure of GuySuCo estates provide a broader historical perspective that complicates the Ministry’s argument.
The study, which drew on information from GuySuCo, the Ministry of Agriculture and other local and international organisations, documents employment levels under successive administrations.
According to the report (page 24), when the PPP/C assumed office in October 1992, GuySuCo employed 28,081 workers. This was only 325 fewer than the 28,406 employed when the sugar industry was nationalised in 1976 under the People’s National Congress (PNC) administration.
The report shows that by May 2015, when the PPP/C left office, GuySuCo’s workforce had fallen to 16,927, including 15,387 field and factory workers. This represented a reduction of 11,154 employees during the PPP/C’s 1992–2015 period in government.
By comparison, the ILO study records 5,160 workers laid off during the APNU+AFC administration between 2015 and 2020, based on information supplied by GuySuCo.
The report (page 31) provides the following breakdown of dismissals at the four estates:
- Wales: 937 workers
- East Demerara: 1,531 workers
- Rose Hall: 903 workers
- Skeldon: 1,789 workers
The affected employees comprised 95 senior staff, 314 junior staff and 4,751 other workers.
The historical figures challenge the impression that the destruction of sugar-industry employment began with the APNU+AFC administration. The largest overall reduction in GuySuCo’s workforce, according to the employment figures in the ILO study, occurred between 1992 and 2015, during the PPP/C’s tenure.
This does not diminish the consequences of the four estate closures under the coalition, which devastated affected workers, their families and surrounding communities. However, the record should be presented in its entirety rather than selectively invoking employment losses under one administration while overlooking those recorded under another.
The Ministry also highlighted increased mechanisation, which it said now covers more than 41 per cent of cultivation, and reported that sugar production increased by 19.3 per cent during the first half of 2026 as evidence of the PPP/C’s efforts to rebuild the industry.
However, neither the previous administration’s record nor the Government’s production figures directly address the allegation concerning agrochemicals at Uitvlugt.
With GuySuCo remaining dependent on public investment, the allegations warrant transparent examination. Releasing the October 29 stock-count records, supporting inventory documentation and any relevant audit findings would allow the public to assess the Ministry’s claims.
Ultimately, the question is whether the estate’s inventory controls can withstand independent scrutiny. Political arguments about the sugar industry’s history should likewise be grounded in the full historical record, including the substantial employment reductions that occurred under successive governments.
Read the ILO Report below
https://www.ilo.org/caribbean/
