— Ministry says allegations are misleading, insists civil society selection was open and transparent

THE Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has issued a sharp rebuke to Policy Forum Guyana (PFG), describing the organisation’s latest claims about Guyana’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GYEITI) process as “blatantly false”, and warning that continued misinformation risks creating a distorted public impression of the country’s transparency framework.
In a statement on Tuesday, the ministry said it remains focused on overseeing the natural resources sector, but will not allow PFG’s allegations to go unanswered, noting that the group’s November 18 assertions are “once again taking the Ministry aback.”
Central to the dispute is PFG’s claim that it only became aware in January 2025 that the Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) had ceased to exist. The Ministry dismissed this as fiction.
According to MNR, “It is blatantly false to state that PFG only became aware that the MSG had ceased to exist in January 2025,” citing two letters sent on October 1 and October 18, 2024, both titled “Approval of Retroactive Extension for the MSG Members’ Terms.”
These communications, the Ministry stressed, were dispatched directly to MSG members and are supported by minutes confirming PFG’s knowledge of the issue.
Responding to criticisms about the GYEITI Secretariat’s location within the Ministry, MNR underscored that Guyana is following global best practice.
“Over 90% of implementing countries have the EITI National Secretariat embedded within a government agency,” the release noted adding that only Nigeria and Liberia have fully legislated autonomous EITI bodies.
The Ministry argued that this structure supports efficient oversight: government handles administration, while the MSG retains full control over implementation priorities, reporting, corrective actions, and the work plan.
The Ministry also took aim at PFG’s criticism of the process used to recruit a new civic convenor, reminding the group that its own appointment in 2017 was done without any open process.
“In 2017… the then Minister selected PFG as the civic convenor. There was no open bidding or vetting,” MNR recalled. “PFG has never questioned the process leading up to its own appointment as convenor under less transparent guidelines.”
The Ministry noted that the recent recruitment was far more transparent, an open call published from September 29 to October 15 attracted four applicants: PFG, Dr. Ivor English, Private Sector Commission and Dr. Nanda Gopaul.
“While PFG raised some concerns about whether the PSC fully met the civic definition under EITI, it is interesting that PFG is the only contestant to object to the results,” the statement said.
MNR agreed with the definition of civil society referenced in PFG’s statement but argued that PFG has ignored years of precedent.
“One would then ask why every member of the civil society representatives on the MSG since 2017 has been more or less operating as an individual representative, rather than an organisational representative?” the ministry asked.
It added that PFG had no issues with the criteria outlined when the public call was launched and only objected after not being selected.
In a bid to shut down speculation about bias or manipulation, the Ministry highlighted that the convenor has zero decision-making authority over which civic representatives are ultimately chosen.
“The role of the convenor is plain and simple. Pull civic members together and have them set their own rules… The convenor has NO influence whatsoever over who or how a civic representative is selected.”
Despite the pushback, the Ministry said it remains firmly committed to transparency and to respecting both the CSO Protocol and Requirement 1.4 of the EITI Standard.
This standard, it stressed, guarantees that “civil society [must] choose its representatives freely.”
The Ministry reaffirmed that it will continue supporting robust engagement, consistent rules, and a more transparent sector, while challenging narratives that distort the facts.