By Mark DaCosta- Political commentator and former People’s Progressive Party (PPP) minister, Dr. Henry Jeffrey, has weighed in on the proposed referendum on the 2016 ExxonMobil contract. Dr. Jeffrey highlights both the constitutional challenges and the political motives underlying the issue. While opposition parties advocate for such a referendum, Jeffrey argues that the real issue is not merely the Exxon deal, but rather a deeper flaw in Guyana’s political structure that fails to foster genuine democratic inclusivity.
In a recent column, Dr. Jeffrey examined the reasons behind the growing calls for a referendum on the 2016 Profit Sharing Agreement (PSA) between the Government of Guyana and ExxonMobil. At the heart of the discussion is whether the agreement should be renegotiated, with opposition groups such as the Alliance for Change (AFC) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) leading the charge.
The push for the referendum is gaining traction after the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), initially dismissive of the idea, began to signal openness to it. Dr. Jeffrey suggests, however, that the PPP’s apparent shift in position is likely not due to any perceived public mandate, but rather as a strategic distraction from more pressing electoral concerns. The referendum, he argues, could serve to divert attention away from issues like the upcoming elections, which could be potentially more contentious for the PPP.
Dr. Jeffrey acknowledges that referendums, when designed effectively, can serve as a useful tool for democratic accountability. Citing Switzerland’s long history of holding referendums to ensure government accountability, Jeffrey believes that such mechanisms, if managed properly, could help establish a more inclusive political environment in Guyana. However, he raises several technical concerns specific to Guyana’s context.
Firstly, he notes that Guyana’s ethnic divisions must be carefully considered when designing a referendum to ensure that it does not deepen societal rifts. Jeffrey also highlights the challenge of keeping referendums focused on a single issue, as political parties have already begun to introduce other, unrelated matters into the discussion. The practical details of how a referendum would be held — such as whether the outcome would be binding or advisory, and whether there would be a minimum turnout threshold — also remain unresolved.
Beyond the technicalities, Jeffrey argues that the push for a referendum reflects a deeper issue in Guyana’s political architecture, one that centres on the flawed distribution of power between the executive, legislature. Jeffrey points out that the current system, where the president holds disproportionate influence over both the executive and legislature, undermines the ideal of inclusionary democracy enshrined in Guyana’s constitution.
In particular, Jeffrey critiques the way political parties in Guyana, especially the PPP, maintain control over the political system through a combination of executive dominance and party loyalty. He argues that this control stifles meaningful checks on the executive and reinforces a system where political elites can wield disproportionate influence over governance.
While Jeffrey acknowledges that the ExxonMobil deal is a symptom of this broader issue, he insists that the real challenge lies in addressing the underlying constitutional and political flaws that enable such deals to be made without true public consultation or accountability.
New Developments:
In a new development, after Dr. Jeffrey’s column was published, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, strongly rejected the call for a referendum on the Exxon deal, calling it “a waste of time” and impractical. Nandlall dismissed the idea, not just for its logistical difficulties but for its perceived futility, given the binding legal nature of the 2016 PSA.
Nandlall, speaking on his Tuesday night talk show, suggested that the push by the political opposition for a referendum is politically motivated.
In addition to his critique of the opposition parties’ motives, Nandlall stressed the legal barriers to altering the contract.
He pointed out that the PSA itself contains clauses that prevent unilateral changes, making it clear that any renegotiation would require the consent of ExxonMobil. “The contract itself sets out in about 10 clauses that it cannot be altered unilaterally,” he said.
While opposition parties continue to push for a referendum, Nandlall’s statements have muddied the waters on whether the PPP will consider the idea further. His strong dismissal of the proposal could signal a hardening of the PPP’s stance, despite their earlier indication of openness to the notion.
