-says AFC leadership ‘failed miserably’ to mask their true intentions

“THE party (Alliance for Change) has appointed Dr. Vincent Adams and Mr. David Patterson to head the Alliance for Change oil and gas advisory committee…until we attain government, I will have no input in or involvement with the AFC oil and gas committees,” said Nigel Hughes during a news conference on Friday.

And, Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, during an interview on Friday evening, called attention to the fact that this excuse – a seemingly fig leaf over major conflict of interest concerns, now that Hughes leads the AFC and represents oil giant, ExxonMobil – bears a striking resemblance to the one peddled by his spouse, Cathy Hughes, when it was discovered that contracts from her ministry under the former coalition government were given to her company, VideoMega.

Despite claiming that she stepped away from the day-to-day operations of her company, the disclosure of cheques subsequently found that she was still actively involved.

He said: “This is the same thing her husband is saying now – ‘oh, I have my company, but I am separating from it and I will have no role’ – exact, same thing, her husband is saying now. Then in 2018 she was still signing cheques…she was still involved. Lying to the people of this country…it is the exact, same, thing that Nigel Hughes is saying today.”

He stressed that Hughes, who is not a stranger to a new leader in the political arena, is clearly finding it difficult to distance himself from the duplicity of the AFC. “I think they went into panic mode,” Dr. Jagdeo said.

Notably, Hughes and a number of executive members of his party organised a press conference on Friday afternoon. The leader endeavoured to provide an explanation for the absence of conflict between his personal interests and the national interests.

Jagdeo said: “The entire purpose of the press conference was to prove that Nigel Hughes did not have a conflict of interest, and he failed miserably at that. Secondly, it was designed to get this entire corrupt cabal to support him to remain as leader, and at the same time continue to profit from a contract with Exxon Mobil.”

Jagdeo said that the attorney-at-law sought to ‘conveniently define’, in his own way, what a conflict of interest is. “For a person who said that when the national interest conflicts with that of his client, the client’s interest would prevail. How could you the leader of a political party (take this position) …and you’re seeking to be the presidential candidate for the upcoming elections?” Jagdeo quizzed.

He stressed that not only is this a conflict of interest, but it is also ‘immoral and obscene’ for an individual who is expected to serve the populace to contemplate that.

He highlighted both the AFC and Hughes’ disregard for the people of Guyana.

“Where Nigel Hughes’ money is concerned, he will give up national interest; that’s the moral of the whole story,” Jagdeo said.

MUCH STILL UNEXPLAINED

The Vice President noted that Hughes still has much to answer for.

He said: “You have this committee and they come up with some policy advice. They give it to the leader. So as leader of the party now ‘I will not speak publicly about the advice that my committee, my party, gives me, because it conflicts with the interest of my client. So, I will not advocate for it. So, I am abdicating my responsibility as leader of the party.’”

Dr. Jagdeo also pointed out that the party, Alliance For Change (AFC), has representation in the National Assembly. “Secondly, his party (AFC) is represented in the National Assembly, so he says ‘I can only influence government policy when I am president and therefore, I will resign when I am president’. But he is in a position to influence government policy through the National Assembly. There are three branches of government – the Judiciary, the Executive arm of the State and the Legislature. His MPs are there. He can influence them as leader of the party to vote on a legislation in favour of his client, so also, he is in a conflict-of-interest position there.

The issue of potential political funding through legal services was also raised. He said: “Also, he himself had said, sometime in the past, that these oil companies can fund political parties. And they can take over a country. So, if now Nigel Hughes is the lawyer for ExxonMobil, if he remains the lawyer for this company, and the company pays him for services then what is there to say that this can’t be a conduit for political contributions to his party. Because they can easily inflate the legal bill to give him funding for his political party…he has not addressed this. This is an easy path for political contributions because Exxon is prohibited from making political contributions in the countries they are operating in, outside of the US.”

SELF-INTEREST OVER COUNTRY

Further, while Hughes has been a politically exposed person since his wife became a Parliamentarian, his position now as leader of a political party, has brought him under greater scrutiny.

The issue of the conflict of interest arose after Hughes on June 30, 2024, hours after being elected as AFC leader, was quoted by a local news outlet, saying that he would not break ties from his law firm – Hughes, Fields and Stoby – which represents ExxonMobil unless he is elected to the government.

Hughes said: “No, no! This issue really only arises if and when I become President or acquire a position of power because, then, I’m in a position to influence government policy, they can claim. Right now, I can’t influence government and, therefore, it’s a theoretical conflict.”

Further, the online outlet reported that when asked what would happen if he has to draft a contract or represent ExxonMobil or any other oil and gas sector company in a court case that might go against the grain of the welfare and interest of Guyanese who he is representing politically, Hughes’ response was, “You seriously couldn’t be asking me to compromise my client’s integrity because the interest of Guyana is at stake because I happen to be the leader of a political party….if you hired me in a case against the government of Guyana and you’re going to get an advantage to the disadvantage to the citizens, are you saying I should compromise the quality of advice I give to you and the quality of representation I give to you because Guyana is on the other side? That can’t be right. You’re putting any professional in a position where they have to make a biased decision and they will not be giving their clients the best possible legal service which they are hired to do.”

CLYDE & CO. REPORT

On Thursday, Dr. Jagdeo, also General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), referred to the findings of a report by Clyde & Co. International Law Firm, which was commissioned by the former government. Clyde & Co International Law Firm, a company headquartered in London, England, was commissioned to conduct an “independent” report based on an investigation into the circumstances leading to the execution of the Petroleum Agreement June 27, 2016 – the renegotiated ExxonMobil contract.

Dr. Jagdeo had said: “If you look at the Clyde & Co report, presented on January 30, 2020 – basically to justify that nothing was wrong with the 2016 agreement. But there are some very telling things that came out of a detailed reading of the report.

“…the report said, ‘On 19 May 2015, we understand EEPGL sent a proposed ‘Escrow Process’ flowchart, setting out the various steps and timeline for the execution of a new petroleum agreement (what would become the 2016 Agreement).

“…so, in the period from May 2015 when Nigel Hughes was still Chairman of the AFC, the negotiations started. Their own report said that Exxon sent this document over in May 2015.”

The report also stated that an ExxonMobil official, Brooke Harris, drafted Guyana negotiating position for the new ExxonMobil deal. It added that the Cabinet Memorandum that was approved to greenlight the renegotiation with ExxonMobil was based on email correspondences and drafts exchanged between the APNU+AFC Coalition and ExxonMobil.

The report, on page 29, said: “We understand that on 25 May 2016 Mr (Brooke) Harris provided by email a first draft Cabinet Memorandum.” Page 30 added, “We understand that the Cabinet Memorandum was prepared further to the email correspondence and draft versions exchanged between Mrs Homer and Mr (Brooke) Harris during the period 20 May to 31 May 2016.”

The Clyde & Co International Law Firm’s 30-page report was completed on January 30, 2020.

GLOBAL WITNESS REPORT

Dr. Jagdeo had also called attention to the 2020 Global Witness Report, which further underscored the conflict of interest involving Hughes.

Referring to page 15 of the report, he stated that the report read: “Hughes has denied that his relationships with Trotman and Exxon represent a conflict of interest. In July 2019, he told Global Witness that his time as AFC Chairman did not really overlap with Trotman’s time as Minister of Natural Resources. Hughes did resign his post as AFC Chairman near the start of the Stabroek negotiations and was not in this post when Trotman was negotiating with Exxon in June 2016. However, as reported in the Guyanese press, Trotman became a minister in May 2015, eleven months before Hughes relinquished his AFC position in April 2016.”

He added, “Hughes said I was not Exxon’s lawyer when Trotman was Minister, but it wasn’t true. Eleven months after Trotman was Minister that is when he resigned. So, what we had was the General Secretary of AFC (Trotman) negotiating with Exxon and the Chairman of AFC (Nigel Hughes) is Exxon’s lawyer.”

Conflict of interest concerns were initially publicised in the February 2020 with the publication of a Global Witness Report titled ‘Signed Away’. The renegotiated deal with ExxonMobil was done “quickly” and “apparently without a competitive bidding process” in 2016, according to the report.

The report made clear that the rushed signing of a re-negotiated deal with ExxonMobil was also due in part to the company’s “seemingly aggressive tactics” that succeeded with the engagement of Trotman. “Trotman had reason to know that his Stabroek negotiation terms were weak…. Exxon needed a new deal, and it aggressively pursued one. In early April 2016, the company opened negotiations in Texas by confronting two inexperienced Guyanese officials,” the report said. The renegotiated deal was signed on June 27, 2016. Further, while the APNU+AFC Coalition’s Trotman was legally responsible for the oil and gas sector in 2016, during which period the ExxonMobil agreement was renegotiated, concerns about the role of his then partner in the AFC, Nigel Hughes, were been spotlighted in a damning report.

The report, on page 14 said: “Trotman was legally responsible for assessing and approving or rejecting Guyana’s oil licenses. However, during the 2016 Stabroek negotiations Trotman had a possible conflict of interest. Trotman’s main political partner – Nigel Hughes – had served as one of Exxon’s lawyers on other matters, and Hughes’ firm periodically represents Exxon as a client.”

Notably, when the renegotiated ExxonMobil contract was finally released, on page 4, the address of Hughes’ law office is listed as the registered office – 62 Hadfield and Cross Streets, Werk-en-Rust, Georgetown – of the oil company.

Although the report was withdrawn in 2021, Global Witness in a statement said: “We stand by the integrity of the evidence we have presented.”

Global Witness had called for the relationship between Trotman, Hughes, and Exxon to be investigated to determine the existence or extent of any conflict of interest.