Dear Editor,
REPORTEDLY, Nigel Hughes disclosed that ExxonMobil Guyana (EMGL) and several of the oil companies are clients of his law firm. This disclosure was made when he was asked about renegotiation of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement if he is elected as the AFC’s leader, to which he promptly responded that he cannot comment on that for the reason stated herein.
It would appear that Mr. Nigel Hughes believes that merely disclosing the above conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest will suffice. But it’s not. There are instances in which some conflicts of interest can be managed, and there are instances where some conflicts of interest would have to be avoided.
In this instance, the conflict of interest that Mr. Hughes is—or will be embroiled in—would have to be avoided. More interestingly, as it would appear, Mr. Hughes has presidential ambitions, vis-à-vis, his concoction and/or endorsement of the term “a consensus presidential candidate”, suggesting that he will, at the opportune time, impose himself to be the presidential candidate, either as part of the coalition of opposition political parties, APNU+AFC, or whether that party (the AFC) opts to contest the next general and regional elections solo.
For the reasons stated above, it would be absolutely and dangerously unethical for the law firm that Mr. Hughes is affiliated with to continue its provision of legal services to EMGL and all other oil-and-gas companies. It would be outrageously unacceptable if he continues to do so. Also, it doesn’t matter if he is the principal owner of the firm or part owner of the firm.
Reflect for a moment that if the current Vice-President or any of the current Cabinet members of the incumbent government was involved in any type of business dealings with EMGL and the other oil-and-gas companies, the criticisms and protestations against this would have been immensely intensified with the view of creating havoc in the political environment.
It is worth highlighting that should Mr. Hughes be elected as the AFC’s leader, then EMGL will be forced to terminate its contractual arrangement with his firm. To this end, EMGL is bound by its internal anti-corruption policy in accordance with the US “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. Thereunder, EMGL is prohibited from conducting business with government officials, which is equally applied to candidates of political parties.
Against this background, it is not sufficient for Mr. Hughes to merely disclose his law firm provides legal services to the oil-and-gas companies, particularly EMGL. Mr. Huges would have to state, further to that, that once he is elected, that his firm would have to terminate all contractual arrangements with EMGL and other oil-and- gas companies. If he doesn’t, EMGL would be forced to do so in order to be in compliance with their anti-corruption policies and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In the unlikely event that he loses the election, his contestation for the candidacy of leadership of a political party would nonetheless deem him to be a “Politically Exposed Person” (PEP), pursuant to the Anti-Corruption Laws.
Sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
