Something doesn’t smell right

Aug 05, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – When Cabinet grants a “no-objection” to a contract involving public money, the public is entitled to assume that prior to the matter reaching Cabinet, due diligence would have been conducted.

It is also assumed that in determining the ranking of the bidders that technical competence and experience were thoroughly assessed, and that the process was guided by integrity, not intrigue. But in the case of the now-controversial consultancy contract for the supervision of the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) transmission system, the sequence of events and conflicting official statements suggest that something is terribly amiss. In fact, it stinks.

The core of the controversy is that Prime Minister Mark Phillips reportedly told the National Assembly that the contract for the consultancy services was awarded to Method4, a Canadian company. Yet, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo is now defending the approval of a completely different company—InterEnergy Group (IEG) from the Dominican Republic—for the same work. Even though we are told that no contract has yet been inked, this is by no means a minor inconsistency. It is a contradiction.

Even more troubling is the Vice President’s casual dismissal of the public’s concerns. According to him, the US$650,000 monthly figure being proposed for IEG’s services is “a small amount” and “not secretly done.” He assures the nation that nothing has been finalized, that the agreement is still under negotiation, and that everything will be made public once it is signed. But none of this, answers the central question: how did this new company from the Dominican Republic supersede the one from Canada as the frontrunner—backed by Cabinet—for a multimillion-dollar contract?

It was to be expected that when the original bids were assessed for this consultancy, technical criteria would have included experience, qualifications, and past performance. So why, after a supposedly competitive process, is the government now saying that Method4, the company it first announced, may not have had the necessary experience? Why now question the recipient’s qualifications after the fact?

Was Cabinet misled? Or worse, did Cabinet knowingly give a no-objection to a sole-sourced arrangement outside the competitive bidding process, under the guise of expediency?

This is not how good governance is supposed to work. In any transparent procurement process, all potential consultants are required to submit technical and financial proposals. These are rigorously evaluated, with scores assigned based on defined criteria. If Method4 lacked the experience, that fact should have been picked up and disqualified them at the evaluation stage—not months later, after being announced as the chosen firm. The government cannot now feign surprise or claim that circumstances have changed. This is not a schoolyard game where the rules shift mid-play.

The public has a right to demand answers.

The discrepancy in official narratives—one from the Prime Minister and another from the Vice President—is not just a public relations disaster; it is a governance crisis. These are not backbenchers or minor functionaries speaking. These are the highest-ranking figures in the executive branch contradicting each other on a contract worth millions of taxpayer and oil-revenue dollars. If they cannot get their stories straight on something as significant as a $7 million consultancy, how can they be trusted with oversight of a $28.7 billion energy project?

The usual government tactic of brushing off criticism as political mischief or opposition propaganda no longer holds water. Even if we remove politics from the equation, this issue reeks of poor communication, and possibly worse.

What is needed now is not more deflection, but an independent international review of the entire consultancy award process. The Government of Guyana should invite a credible international procurement monitoring agency—such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) or the World Bank—to conduct a transparent and independent investigation. Let them determine how Method4 came to be selected, why its experience is now in doubt, and how InterEnergy Group came to be in the picture at all.

The stakes could not be higher. Guyana is on the cusp of transformative energy development. But that transformation will be tainted—perhaps fatally—if these early, high-stakes decisions are seen as murky, inconsistent, or corrupt. The Vice President says negotiations are still ongoing and that the final agreement will be disclosed. But that is not enough. We need to know why the Cabinet gave a no-objection in the first place. And we need to ensure that every dollar spent on this project is done in the public’s interest. Until then, this matter cannot be swept aside. There are too many unanswered questions. The smell of something rotten is too strong.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Guyana Power and Light, Method4, no-objection, Peeping Tom, public money

---