By Mark DaCosta- In a scathing evaluation of the recently presented Budget 2026, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has urged the government to rethink its priorities, describing the financial plan as one that favours infrastructure over the needs of ordinary citizens. The partnership’s assessment underscores growing concerns that while the government boasts about massive allocations for construction projects, essential services for the populace are left wanting, exposing a troubling disconnect between government rhetoric and reality.
APNU argues that the budget demonstrates a disproportionate emphasis on infrastructure development, with a proposed allocation of $24.3 billion intended for the construction of over 40 schools. While the party acknowledges the importance of educational facilities, it cautions that mere physical structures do not guarantee quality education.
APNU has raised critical questions about the lack of emphasis on the necessary support systems, such as teacher training and wage increases, which are crucial for ensuring that students receive a comprehensive education. They point to the “abysmally poor” matriculation rates in hinterland regions, highlighting that without adequate investment in human resources, the educational ambitions of the government may fall short.
Funding dedicated to educational materials — $2.3 billion earmarked for replenishing textbooks — translates to a mere $19,983 per student for the whole year. This figure, they argue, is grossly inadequate in the face of rising costs for educational resources, thus demonstrating a lack of commitment to truly investing in the future of the youth.
Similarly, the allocations for classroom supplies, averaging $26,933 per student, appear substantial but ultimately deliver modest benefits at the household level. The Guyana Digital School Initiative’s allocation of $176.1 million raises further alarm, with just $8,004 per student suggesting that the quality and sustainability of digital education remain questionable.
Another focal point of the APNU’s critique is the school feeding programme, which, despite its promotion as a key government initiative, provides only $312 per child per day over a 39-week school year. Given the rising cost of food, this allocation signals a worrying limitation on the potential nutritional benefits for children.
A lack of clarity in the government’s child-focused cash transfer initiatives similarly drew scrutiny. Under the “Because We Care” cash grants, discrepancies in budgetary figures have left opposition leaders questioning the integrity of the government’s claims. The financial inconsistencies suggest a careless assembly of figures aimed at supporting a narrative rather than a meticulous budgeting process, which might undermine public trust in the government.
Even in housing, a vital sector for many Guyanese citizens, APNU notes a disconnection between ambitious promises and practical feasibility. While the government touts the allocation for 40,000 new homes over the next five years, the practicality of achieving this target raises scepticism. Given the current housing challenges, including labour shortages and administrative delays, the credibility of these claims becomes suspect.
Additionally, the APNU has called attention to the substantial $159.1 billion allocated for housing development in 2026, arguing that the longstanding issue of public transparency in the Silica City project continues to cast doubt on the effective use of public funds. They are particularly concerned that the increased mortgage ceiling, though marketed as a relief measure, remains out of reach for low-wage public servants, raising questions about how the government truly intends to support its citizens in the housing sector.
Cost-of-living adjustments also feature prominently in the budget, with a proposed $9 billion allocation to alleviate financial pressures. However, the APNU regards this as lacking specificity, being housed under the Office of the President without clarity on how it will be distributed or who might benefit from these measures. Instead of directly assisting those in need, they argue that such allocations appear vague and inadequately planned.
The plight of pensioners and low-income public assistance recipients has reached alarming levels amidst the backdrop of a growing economy. While old age pensions will increase incrementally, they remain starkly inadequate compared to the rapid inflation and rising living costs. Similarly, public assistance, set at $25,000 monthly, remains inadequate to meet even the most basic dietary needs in the current economic climate.
The APNU has also expressed concern regarding the agriculture sector, calling for a more robust policy framework that addresses critical infrastructure needs in key agricultural regions. They highlight the potential for climate-resilient agriculture in the Linden highway corridor, advocating for practical support mechanisms that match the ambitious growth goals set by the government.
In the burgeoning economy, which the government plans to invest in significantly, APNU points out a lack of protections for intellectual property, casting doubt on the ability of emerging creative industries to thrive without state interference. This raises alarm regarding whether these initiatives are genuinely aimed at empowering citizens or merely serve to entrench governmental control.
Ultimately, APNU encapsulates its view by pointing to the government’s track record of poor project management, warning that the ambitious spending allocations in Budget 2026 risk being squandered without adequate oversight and technical capabilities. Past failures, marked by budget overruns, construction delays, and procurement inefficiencies, have already sown seeds of distrust.
In its critical assessment of Budget 2026, A Partnership for National Unity posits that despite the government’s assurances, the fiscal plan shows a prioritisation of projects over people. As infrastructure projects take centre stage, the needs of public servants, pensioners, and the vulnerable risks being sidelined. The party’s position asserts that, ultimately, the budget fails to deliver on its promises of welfare and support for ordinary citizens, who appear to remain last in the government’s priorities.
