Dear Editor,
I wish to bring to the urgent attention of the subject minister and the public the deteriorating state of the Internal Audit Department at the Guyana Power & Light Inc. (GPL), a situation that has long reached a level where it threatens the integrity, efficiency, and financial stability of the company. Despite a visibly alarming staff turnover rate, neither Executive Management nor the Human Resources Department appears to have taken notice—or worse, they have chosen to ignore the problem. It is the view of many staff who have either requested transfers from this department or have left entirely that the latter is indeed the case.
Within the past year alone, the department has seen the departure of three senior managers and two junior managers. Junior positions remain perpetually vacant because staff do not stay. New hires have resigned in less than a day. The department is trapped in a cycle of constant recruitment and training, with no opportunity to build a seasoned, stable team capable of executing audits for a company of GPL’s size and national importance. This is not normal attrition; this is systemic failure.
Editor, in a company such as GPL—where operational reliability, financial stewardship, and public trust are paramount—the role of an effective Internal Audit Department cannot be overstated. Energy utilities operate complex systems involving procurement, fuel management, generation, transmission, distribution, revenue collection, and regulatory compliance. Each of these areas carries significant financial exposure and operational risk. A properly functioning audit department ensures that internal controls are robust, that public funds are safeguarded, that procurement processes are transparent, and that inefficiencies or irregularities are detected early before they escalate into costly failures. Without a competent audit function, GPL becomes vulnerable to fraud, mismanagement, inflated contracts, technical losses, revenue leakages, and regulatory breaches—any of which can destabilize the company and directly impact national energy security. The audit department is therefore not merely an administrative unit; it is a critical pillar of GPL’s governance framework and a frontline defense against systemic risk.
The concerns raised by staff point consistently to the management style of the current Director of Internal Audit at the organization. Numerous employees have described the Director’s approach as excessively micromanaging, belittling, and openly disrespectful, resulting in morale that is at an all‑time low. The Director’s manner of speaking to staff has been widely described across GPL as “piggish” and “as if the director owns the staff.” These are not isolated complaints—they are repeated, consistent, and alarming.
Additionally, staff have reported a troubling pattern in which, after belittling or speaking disrespectfully to employees, the Director dismisses this behaviour as a “joke.” Employees have made it clear that they do not find these interactions humorous, nor do they consider them appropriate for a professional environment. This repeated minimisation of disrespect has significantly deepened the department’s low morale and reinforced an environment where staff feel undervalued, unheard, and professionally diminished.
Further, many of the Director’s internally‑created rules are described by staff as arbitrary, inconsistent, and rooted more in personal distrust and insecurity than in any recognised audit standard or operational best practice. These rules have not improved efficiency; instead, they have hindered workflow, created confusion, and reinforced an atmosphere of fear and instability. Such practices are incompatible with the leadership required to manage an Internal Audit Department in a major public utility.
Editor, reports indicate that the Director struggles to work with any employee who does not engage in gossip, personal loyalty tests, or the Director’s preferred style of dictatorial management. Staff have also reported being used by the director as a personal driver, bag carrier (being sent to fetch the Director’s bag from the Director’s car every time the Director goes in and out of the office), being sent to do the Director’s personal shopping, even on weekends, with no payment for overtime or performing duties outside of their job descriptions. This is a clear misuse of company resources by the director and a blatant disrespect to staff as staff have indicated being victimized by the Director if they refuse to do these personal errands.
More troubling are allegations that the Director attempts to intimidate employees by claiming sole responsibility for them having a job, and that the Director routinely lies to staff about each other, creating conflict and division within the department and the wider company. This pattern of behaviour has resulted in other managers—and even fellow directors—actively avoiding interactions with the Director of Internal Audit. When senior leadership avoids a department head, it signals a deep governance problem.
It is also worth noting that a basic review of this individual’s professional history at GPHC and GBTI would have revealed similar concerns. GPL should reflect on whether due diligence was adequately conducted before this Director’s appointment, or whether such was not necessary because of political connections.
Furthermore, there are credible concerns regarding the Director’s practice of placing individuals in key positions based not on qualifications or merit, but on perceived personal loyalty or the Director’s ability to control them. This approach has repeatedly proven unsuccessful, as the same individuals later struggle under the Director’s controlling and dictatorial management style. Such conduct undermines meritocracy, erodes professional standards, and weakens the overall performance of the Internal Audit Department. It also exposes GPL to significant operational and legal risks. If left unaddressed, this leadership pattern may ultimately cost GPL millions—if not billions—in lawsuits, failed audits, compromised internal controls, and the long‑term deterioration of the company’s governance framework.
The Internal Audit Department Director’s disregard for rules and regulations, and the Director’s tendency to twist them to suit personal agendas, is incompatible with the ethical standards required of an Internal Audit Director. GPL cannot afford this level of dysfunction in a department that is supposed to safeguard the company’s accountability, compliance, and financial integrity.
Editor, I therefore call on GPL’s Executive Management, the Board of Directors, and the Hon. Minister responsible for the energy sector to urgently investigate this matter. A harmonious, professional, and ethically grounded Internal Audit Department is essential if GPL is to achieve the standards and growth envisioned by the Minister. The current situation is untenable, and the cost of inaction will be borne by the company, its employees, and ultimately the Guyanese public.
Respectfully submitted,
Concerned Staff Members.
