Dear Editor,
Guyanese can no longer afford to pretend that recent developments in our media, legal system, and political discourse are occurring in isolation. What is emerging is a clear and troubling pattern — one that suggests the convergence of media power, legal activism, and business interests into a coordinated effort to weaken the PPP/C government, destabilize the oil and gas sector, and erode public confidence in the state.
At the centre of this network sits Mr. Christopher Ram. For years, he has projected himself as a neutral civic watchdog. Yet his actions betray a distinctly political agenda. His relentless opposition to the Stabroek Block oil contract, his repeated legal challenges against the state, and his attempt to challenge the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) immediately before elections were not harmless academic exercises. They carried the real risk of electoral disruption and institutional instability at a critical national moment.
It is reasonable to ask whether Mr. Ram’s attempt to interfere with electoral law on the eve of elections was purely coincidental, or whether it served the interests of emerging political actors who stood to benefit from confusion, delay, or delegitimization of the electoral process. Ram also recently led a protest outside the US Embassy following the arrest of US-indicted Venezuelan narco-terrorist Nicholas Maduro.
Equally alarming is the media infrastructure that amplifies and normalizes these attacks. Stabroek News, where Mr. Ram is a major and frequent contributor, consistently advances narratives hostile to the government and skeptical of Guyana’s oil framework. Kaieteur News, owned by Mr. Glenn Lall, adopts an openly confrontational posture — not only against the government, but against Western partners and the petroleum sector itself. Demerara Waves, controlled by Mr. GHK Lall, completes this triangle, functioning less as an objective news platform and more as a vehicle for sustained political agitation.
When the same arguments, the same talking points, and the same targets appear repeatedly across these outlets, the claim of coincidence collapses under its own weight.
The involvement of the Mohamed family brings these concerns into even sharper focus. Hadi World, associated with Azruddin Mohamed, was rejected by the Inter-American Development Bank from participation in an oil-related consortium even before subsequent international sanctions became public. That rejection, reportedly reinforced by a veto from the United States — the IDB’s largest shareholder with dominant voting power — raises serious questions about international confidence, risk assessment, and credibility.
Yet today, Mr. Mohamed is being repositioned in the public space as a political alternative, even styled by some as a “new opposition leader.” This political rehabilitation has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been accompanied by sympathetic media coverage, aggressive attacks on the sitting government, and legal activism aimed at weakening confidence in Guyana’s institutions.
From a picture recently posted by Mohamed on his Facebook page, along with the action I highlighted above, it is clear that Mr. Ram, Mr. Glenn Lall, and Mr. GHK Lall are not merely commentators — they are actively advising, guiding, and shaping the political trajectory of Mr. Mohamed at a time when he faces well-known international legal and reputational pressures. While no single actor may openly admit coordination, politics is rarely conducted through declarations alone. It is revealed through alignment, timing, and shared objectives.
This is not about silencing criticism. Criticism is essential in a democracy. But when criticism evolves into a sustained campaign that undermines investor confidence, weakens electoral credibility, and threatens national stability — all while aligning with the interests of controversial business figures — the public has a duty to question motive and intent.
Guyana’s oil resources, democratic institutions, and international standing are too important to be treated as bargaining chips in private power struggles. Transparency must apply not only to the government, but equally to those who wield media influence, legal authority, and political ambition while claiming moral superiority.
The country deserves honesty — and vigilance — from all who claim to speak in the public interest.
Regards,
Erin Northe