Nandlall slams WPA, AFC over ‘ridiculous’ call for referendum on Exxon 2016 deal
- Home
- News
Rejecting recent calls for a referendum on the 2016 Profit Sharing Agreement (PSA) between the Government of Guyana and ExxonMobil, Attorney General Anil Nandlall labeled the proposal a “waste of time,” noting inherent limitations and contradictions in the push for such a vote.
His comments, made during his Tuesday night talk show, bare the call’s uselessness when the practicality of the referendum and possible motives are assessed.
The demand for a referendum was raised by the Alliance for Change (AFC) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), two political groups that have been critical of the terms of the 2016 PSA which was signed while they were in government.
The purpose of the proposed referendum would be to gauge public opinion on whether the agreement should be renegotiated. However, the Attorney General questioned the logic of the timing and the political credentials of those pushing for the referendum.
Nandlall directed a pointed critique at the WPA, a party he argued no longer had the political strength or membership to make legitimate calls on national matters.
He also turned his attention to the AFC, accusing the party of hypocrisy. The AFC, as part of the coalition government, was instrumental in signing the 2016 PSA in the first place.
“It is the AFC who essentially signed that 2016 PSA,” Nandlall pointed out, noting that it was the AFC’s leader, Raphael Trotman, who was the responsible minister at the time.
Nandlall questioned why the AFC did not seek a referendum or public consultation before signing the agreement, suggesting that the call for a referendum now was politically motivated and out of touch with reality.
Beyond the political dynamics, Nandlall stressed the futility of seeking to alter the PSA through a referendum, given the legal framework of the agreement itself.
“The contract itself sets out in about 10 clauses that it cannot be altered unilaterally,” he explained, emphasizing that any renegotiation would require the agreement of ExxonMobil, which has made it clear it is not interested in revisiting the terms.
The Attorney General also pointed out that a referendum, in this case, would be powerless to effect any meaningful change.
Nandlall dismissed the calls for a referendum as a futile exercise, criticizing the political motivations behind the proposal and highlighting the legal and practical constraints of altering the 2016 PSA.
With both ExxonMobil and the contractual terms standing firm, he made it clear that a referendum, no matter how popular the cause, would not lead to any meaningful change.
For Nandlall, the push for a referendum is little more than a distraction from the real, complex challenges of renegotiating the oil deal.
