THE Attorney General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Legal Affairs have issued a firm response to what it describes as “gross misinformation and misrepresentation” being circulated about the Oil Pollution Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Responsibility Bill 2025, which was recently passed in the National Assembly.

In a detailed public statement released on Saturday, the ministry declared its intention, alongside the Ministry of Natural Resources, to issue a series of clarifications to “prevent the unsuspecting public from being duped by this massive volume of fallacies and flawed arguments.”

The first clarification focuses on Section 21 of the Bill, which the government said has been subjected to the worst kind of distortion.

“We will begin with section 21 because it is perhaps the victim of the worst type of misinterpretation and consequent misrepresentation,” the Ministry said. “The language is simple and clear. This section absolutely prohibits the transfer of liability by any agreement or like instrument. It is that simple.”

The release explained that this section intends to prevent responsible parties from divesting or transferring liability to third parties in order to shield themselves from the financial and other consequences of oil pollution incidents.

“It is a common feature in the commercial world for entities to transfer liability to third parties so that their assets are insulated and protected from financial and other consequences which may result from such liability. This section intends to prohibit that practice so that the liability incurred, at all material times, remain with the responsible party.”

The ministry heavily criticised certain commentators for distorting this provision through what it termed “interpretational gymnastics.”

“The pseudo experts argue, by some interpretational gymnastics, that this section actually permits the evasion of liability. The truth is that the section does exactly the opposite. It completely outlaws any attempt to sever liability.”

The statement went further, addressing another claim that Section 21 invalidates the parent company guarantee, calling that assertion “bewildering.”

“Worst yet, they contend that the section invalidates the parent company guarantee! How the language of that section lends to this conclusion is even more bewildering. The truth is that the section does not deal with or has no connection whatsoever to any form of financial assurance, including the parent company guarantee.”

The government emphasised that financial assurance is “exclusively addressed” in another part of the Bill: Part VIII, titled “Financial Responsibility.”

“This Part of the Bill deals with the type of financial assurance that is required. It expressly maintains the status quo, that is to say, it keeps the current mechanisms of financial assurance in place, including insurance, bonds, and parent company guarantees.”

The statement also debunked claims that the Bill repeals the Environmental Protection Act, describing such assertions as “ridiculous.”

“One commentator has even gone to the ridiculous extreme to say that the Bill repeals the Environmental Protection Act. On the contrary, the Bill expressly embraces the Environmental Protection Act by sections 27 (2) and (3).”

The ministry went on to suggest that the confusion surrounding Section 21 likely stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of legal and commercial principles.

“We believe that the uninitiated outpourings regarding section 21 stems directly from a lack of understanding of certain key legal concepts. A guarantee (of which a parent company guarantee is a specie) is legally distinct, and commercially different, from the concept of transferring liability. Our expert commentators have either conflated or confused the two.”

The distinction, the Ministry explained, is that a guarantee assures liability if the primary actor fails to meet it, while a transfer of liability allows the primary actor to evade it—something Section 21 explicitly forbids.

“A guarantee does not transfer liability. It assures liability in the event of the failure to discharge by the primary actor (the responsible party). A transfer of liability permits the assignment of liability to a third party, thereby allowing the primary actor (the responsible party) to evade or elude liability. Section 21 prevents this.”

To further illustrate the strength of the Bill, the ministry highlighted Section 27(4), which requires assurance coverage to be as “comprehensive as practicable.” This, it noted, must be read alongside Section 17, which places no cap on the liability it creates.

“These financial provisions must be read along with section 17. Section 17 places no cap whatsoever on the liability that it creates. In short and simple terms, this Bill has firmly entrenched that the financial assurance framework must be commensurate with the nature of liability created and contemplated by section 17.”

The statement concluded by reaffirming the government’s position that this legislative framework now offers robust protection for Guyana and its people, while warning the public against being misled by those spreading misinformation.

“This robust statutory framework now established protects Guyana and its people. This legal reality is unfortunately lost upon that motley few who continue to haplessly pollute the public domain with their misapprehensions and misconceptions. We respectfully advise the public to ignore them.”

The Ministry of Legal Affairs said it will continue to release information to ensure clarity and counter what it views as deliberate distortions by critics.