Dear Editor
I WRITE with reference to Melinda Janki’s letter to the Editor: “I did not represent Exxon” (KN, February 3, 2023). The apparent intent of Ms Janki’s letter is to push back against persistent charges of hypocritical conduct related the oil- and-gas industry in Guyana. Her effort falls well short of a credible defence. Worse yet, her defence is not only weak on its factual aspects, but it descends into a plethora of claims that are petty, irrelevant, diversionary, and at times even comical.

Let us begin with an examination of the facts. Janki, with her high-end legal training, opens her account with an intended knock-out blow when she pronounces someone “…said I represented Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement. I did not.” Fine, but the case against her is not about the “petroleum agreement” per se, but about her past professional connections to BP and Exxon.
Editor, let us make something clear to our readers. Melinda Janki, by her own admission, was professionally associated with law firms that represented oil companies.

Here she is on Exxon. Referring to the law firm, DeCaires, Fitzpatrick and Karran, she states, “[t]hey were Esso’s lawyers at that time. I was one of the firm’s consultant lawyers. Miles Fitzpatrick, put my name because [said] nobody else knew anything about oil.” Janki makes it appear that her name entered into the firm’s roster at the mere whim and fancy of Fitzpatrick. But in the same sentence, the cunning is betrayed when in her own words she confirms that “nobody else knew anything about oil.”

Let us then rephrase. Ms Janki was the oil expert at DeCaires, Fitzpatrick and Karran, while the firm represented Exxon. Editor, I regret that Ms Janki places the burden of proof on Miles Fitzpatrick, albeit that since he is deceased, no one can prove anything. Miles was a good man, and Ms Janki should not disrespect him to save face and reputation.

In one fell swoop, Ms Janki moves next to confirm her service to the oil industry, but only to immediately minimise that salient fact. Of special importance is the fact that she was given power of attorney privileges in “…1999 which authorised [her] to receive lawful notices, accept service of process …” while she was the top oil expert at the said law firm representing Esso.

Her alibi offered, namely, that the power of attorney was the “standard formula” can only be described as pathetically inadequate. The fact that her power of attorney privileges came via standardized process does not alter the most relevant fact, namely, that Melinda Janki was legally empowered to act on behalf of a law firm that represented the same oil company (and others) she is now against. The truth is that Ms Janki’s power of attorney was in effect as late as 2017. This is by her own admission. Her excuse that is should have been withdrawn since 2007 is not acceptable, not least because if she had allowed it to “be live,” there are issues of her attention to details, this being a critical component of legal competence.

Janki then tries to be transparent about her work for BP. Here she is: “Lest it generate more speculation, I also worked in BP’s head office as a lawyer.” Too late, I am afraid. There is no transparency here because this information was revealed a long time ago by good investigative journalism. There is no such thing as retroactive transparency.

It should be clear that the factual side of Ms Janki’s defence cannot and will not stand basic scrutiny by the Guyanese public. What about her more far-fetched, artful defence?

On the latter, Ms Janki is more like an Olympian skier on the giant slalom, curving through references to Facebook, “the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (oil) and the South Caucasus Pipeline,” the conduct of American military personnel, a breakfast buffet, the preferences of recent law school graduates, and, inter alia, generic references to actors such as schoolchildren.

To top it off, she makes claims that can only be considered signs of desperation. Take for instance her supposedly deep insights into the fluctuations in prestige working for oil companies. Here is Janki in her own words: “In those days, working in the oil industry was highly regarded. The top lawyers got the best work. But in the last few years, things have changed significantly. Working for the fossil-fuel sector is not highly regarded. Young people hate oil companies. They think it is a betrayal to work for them.”

What might one make of this attempt at a sociology of legal careers? Not much, except that by her own words, Ms Janki embarked on a legal career in oil when it was “highly regarded.” Now that it is fashionable to be anti-development based on hydrocarbon resources, she is against oil and gas.

Ms Janki then flings herself into the language games of liberal cosmopolitanism, railing against oil and gas without saying a single word about who are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, Ms Janki makes herself out to be a victim of freedom of expression. How ironic is that? Her missive, even though based on a compendium of calculated diversions and amusing deviations, is in fact, published. How do we compare that to the firing of the most widely read columnist in the history of Guyana, Freddie Kissoon, who was fired for his freedom of expression.
Editor, our readers should understand that Guyana has always had locals who connived with outside elements to stifle our development.

No one less that Edward Said, the world-famous scholar on orientalism, once insisted that foreign interference cannot succeed without local collaborators. There is a global anti-Third World development movement housed in the metropolitan capitals. They are always on the lookout to recruit a handful of elites in poor countries to help their cause. They are all very well funded.

Sincerely,
Dr Randolph Persaud