Dear Editor
In a span of mere weeks, Guyanese citizens have witnessed an extraordinary contrast in governmental behaviour—one that starkly exposes the uneven weight of justice under the current administration. On one hand, the explosive revelations about sitting government ministers — involving sprawling land acquisitions, multimillion-dollar mansions, commercial apartment buildings, luxury fleets, and even businesses tied to offsprings and personal partners — have cast a glaring light on potential corruption at the heart of power.
These disclosures, emanating from the Leader of the Opposition’s public exposés, paint a troubling picture of unchecked enrichment at the expense of the public purse .
Yet, despite their gravity, the nation’s top executive figures — both the President and his outspoken Vice President — have maintained a telling silence. Not a single authoritative statement, inquiry, or visible administrative move has been made to address or even acknowledge the serious allegations. Even the commissions and agencies tasked with these mandates, remain stuck in a functional—frozen state. This state of indifference screams volumes. It suggests either complicity or a conscious strategy to ride out public outrage, trusting that partisan fatigue will mute accountability.
Contrast that with the government’s zealous pursuit via GRA of a tangential issue involving the same Opposition Leader — namely, the allegedly irregular transfer of personal
vehicles. Within days, the machinery of the state without hesitation roared to life: abrupt dismissals at the Guyana Revenue Authority, swift denunciations, threats of pending criminal charges and the full disciplinary weight of the administration turned on public servants. This urgency, comparable to a state of emergency over a routine procedural matter, is jarring — particularly since, by all reported accounts, the transactions involved payment of the usual fees and no financial loss to the state.
The juxtaposition is inescapable. When allegations point toward the political opposition or ordinary civil servants, the state apparatus transforms into an avenging giant. Yet when the same cloud of suspicion drifts over ministers of government, the response is eerie stillness — silence masquerading as prudence. The image that emerges is one of selective outrage dressed up as governance, where accountability is not a principle but a weapon deployed only against the politically inconvenient.
This imbalance corrodes public trust and undermines the Republic’s legal framework. Rule of law cannot thrive where justice is applied by discretion — rigorous for some, invisible for others. It reinforces a dangerous message: proximity to power grants immunity, while distance from it invites persecution.
If leadership means anything, it must first mean moral consistency. The President cannot thunder about integrity in some instances and whisper in others. The Vice President cannot sermonize about good governance while sidestepping scrutiny when the mirror turns inward. Guyana deserves leadership transparent enough to prove that the law is not a battlefield tactic — but the shared foundation of every citizen, minister or not.
Sincerely,
Hemdutt Kumar
