Fresh revelations have surfaced about the handling of the USD $18 million signature bonus paid by ExxonMobil to Guyana. Evidence provided by former government officials and insights from the book ‘From Destiny to Prosperity’ by Raphael G.C. Trotman, former Minister of Natural Resources, shed light on the logistics and decision-making surrounding the controversial payment, challenging years of speculation and propaganda.
This issue receives greater attention in last Saturday’s ‘Diplomatic Speak’ by former Ambassador Dr. Shamir Ally as outlined below:-
The Role of Key Officials
Documents and testimonies reveal that the payment required a chain of authority. The account for the funds was opened at a U.S. bank by the Finance Secretary, who acted under instructions from senior government officials, including the Minister of Finance and the President at the time, Winston Jordan and David Granger respectively.
Trotman emphasised in his book that no single minister could independently conceptualise, document, or execute the process.
“The Finance Secretary and the Governor of the Bank of Guyana would not have acted without explicit instructions from the Senior Minister of Finance, who would have consulted the President before taking any action,” Trotman noted.
Disputing False Narratives
Critics have long accused Trotman and other ministers of mishandling or misappropriating the funds. However, evidence outlined in Trotman’s book reveals that the $18 million was deposited into an account at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. Trotman dismissed allegations of theft, pointing out the improbability of such claims. “I fail to see how thieves would collaborate with Dr. Gobind Ganga [Governor of the Bank of Guyana] and then bank the proceeds with a U.S. government entity,” he wrote.
Additionally, Trotman clarified that the signature bonus was allocated as follows: $15 million for Guyana’s meşru defense at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its border dispute with Venezuela and $3 million for capacity building across the country’s 10 regions.
Stability Clause and Exxon Negotiations
Trotman also addressed criticisms of the 2016 renegotiated agreement with ExxonMobil, which has been labeled the “worst ever” by detractors. He argued that the agreement was an improvement on the 1999 deal and was consistent with agreements made by other new oil-producing nations, as confirmed by independent analyses from Rystad Energy, Wood Mackenzie, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
On the inclusion of a stability clause, Trotman explained that it was modeled after similar clauses in prior agreements and was demanded by ExxonMobil due to geopolitical risks, particularly the 2013 seizure of a research vessel by the Venezuelan Navy.
“The stability clause was included to address risks Exxon faced and was consistent with clauses used by Guyana in prior agreements,” Trotman wrote.
Cabinet’s Involvement
Dispelling another common claim, Trotman asserted that the agreement was not signed in secrecy. Cabinet was fully informed and approved the deal, with the Minister of Finance later tabling a resolution in the National Assembly.
“There is a persistent but false narrative that I acted alone. In reality, I sought and obtained Cabinet’s approval to enter into the agreement,” Trotman stated in his book.
Broader Implications
Recent commentary by financial analyst Christopher Ram has reignited scrutiny of the Exxon deal. In a column, Ram accused Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and President Irfaan Ali of betrayal, citing their roles in waiving taxes for ExxonMobil. Ram described the actions as a “shocking revelation” of complicity in securing a lopsided agreement.
These revelations add new dimensions to the ongoing debate about the ExxonMobil deal, highlighting the complexity of decisions made under intense geopolitical and economic pressure.
The recent revelations confirms that evidence-based discussions remain critical to understanding the full scope of the agreement and its implications for Guyana’s future.
Refer here for more reading on Dr. Ally’s column