Dear Editor,

JUST like in the famous tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes, where the emperor paraded through the streets in imaginary garments, believing he was wearing a magnificent outfit, when, in reality, he was stark naked, we see a similar situation with Nigel Hughes today.
He tells grand stories and makes bold claims, convincing the gullible that there is no conflict of interest as the leader of the AFC, whose law firm is contracted with oil giant ExxonMobil.
However, much like the emperor’s illusion, many of us see through this facade and recognise the naked truth: His stories of grandeur, setting up an internal committee to keep ExxonMobil at arm’s length and much more, only meet the litmus test of a leader who is self-serving, and will bend to big corporations over the interests of his people.
Nigel Hughes’ conflict of interest is glaringly obvious. As the leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), a party with seats in the National Assembly, his ties to ExxonMobil are not only inappropriate, but also deeply troubling. His law firm’s contract with ExxonMobil places him in a position where his political decisions could be unduly influenced by corporate interests, compromising the welfare of the Guyanese people he is supposed to serve.
Vice-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo has highlighted this issue, stating that ExxonMobil, despite their denial, is conflicted because they have hired and have on their payroll in Guyana the leader of a political party with significant influence over national policies.
Dr. Jagdeo has pointed out that ExxonMobil pays Nigel Hughes ostensibly for legal services, but the amount is not on the public record. This figure could easily be inflated for work not done and may have all the bearings of a legal payment, but it is effectively a political contribution to Hughes and his party to ensure that ExxonMobil’s interests are protected in any future government or even in the current National Assembly.
Hughes’ assertion that he would exit his relationship with ExxonMobil if he became president is a clear attempt to deflect attention from the present conflict of interest. This promise, made with the intent to pacify critics, only serves to highlight his willingness to prioritise personal and corporate interests over public duty.
It’s time for us, the citizens, to be like the child in the story, bravely pointing out the reality that everyone else is too afraid to acknowledge.
Alvin Hamilton