Dear editor,
KINDLY permit a gentle response to the views expressed by many regarding the Government’s continued non-disclosure of information as it relates to the contract with Exxon Mobile.

First, it must be noted that the Government is acting in accordance with section 4 of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, Chapter 65:10, which states subject to subsection (2), no information furnished, or information in report submitted, pursuant to this Act by a licensee shall be disclosed to any person who is not a minister, a public officer or an employee of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), except with the consent of the licensee. Section 4(2) states nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to prevent the disclosure of information without the consent of the licensee, where disclosure is made-

(a) After the licence has ceased to have effect over the land to which information relates;
(b) For, or in connection with, the administration of this Act;
(c) For the purposes of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings;
(d) To any consultant to the Government or the GGMC for the purpose of facilitating the performance by the consultant of any functions under the consultancy arrangement.;

(e) For, or in connection with, the preparation by or on behalf of the state’s statistics, in respect of prospecting or production operations relating to petroleum.
(f) For, or in connection with, the determination of any liability of the licensee to make any payments to the state or the Government;

(g) For, or in connection with any matter or purpose specified in a petroleum agreement.
Section 4(3) where a licensee is a party to the a petroleum agreement the right of the licensee, his servants or agents to disclose information about prospecting or production operations under the licence shall be subject to any restrictions or limitation in that respect specified in the agreement.

Section 4(4) Any person who discloses information in contravention of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine of $70,000 and imprisonment for three years.
Section 4(5) In proceedings on a prosecution for an offence under this section, it shall be sufficient defence if the accused person proves that the information disclosed, and to which the prosecution relates was, without that disclosure, generally known to the public.

Mr editor, what is worthy of mention is the APNU+AFC Government was not in office when the amendment was made to the Principal Act in 1997, which tripled the fines for the disclosure of information and increased the fines for such. Was the non-disclosure of information a sacred tenet regarding any contract of this magnitude then?

Has non-disclosure of information according to the laws cited above outlived its usefulness now because of the change in administration? If these questions were to be answered in the affirmative, why criticise the Government who is merely obeying the laws and is not an advocate for an amendment to the laws guiding the government’s conduct.

The laws relating to non- disclosure is not unprecedented. In fact, international commercial contracts of this magnitude contain non-disclosure clauses which give parties the flexibility to decide what matters would be disclosed and vice versa.

Regards
Earle Hamilton