Former EPA Executive Director, Dr Vincent Adams says there should have been environmental and other approvals granted for President Irfaan Ali’s sprawling farm and he and others including the TUC have called for full disclosure of documents.
Adams told Kiskadee Watch yesterday that any expansion of Ali’s livestock farm from about 20 acres to approximately 150 acres should have triggered a fresh environmental approval process. He called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release official records to determine whether the required permits were ever obtained.
Adams, who headed the EPA from October 2018 to August 2020, said such a significant expansion would ordinarily require the project to be resubmitted to the agency because its environmental impacts would have changed. “If it moved from 20 to 150 acres, he would have to come back to the EPA because the conditions have changed,” Adams said, adding that no such revised application or permit came before him during his tenure.
The former EPA head said the agency should make public the environmental permit for the farm, if one exists, while also urging the release of the relevant land lease or title documents.
“The EPA permit should be produced,” Adams said, arguing that the records would show whether the farm complied with the environmental approval process required for livestock operations.
Adams explained that before granting environmental authorisation, the EPA first verifies legal ownership or a valid land lease before assessing the project’s potential impact on waterways, waste management, air emissions and other environmental standards.
He maintained that no application or revised permit relating to the reported expansion of the President’s farm crossed his desk while he served as Executive Director.
While discussing reports surrounding the property’s expansion, Adams referred to allegations circulating publicly but acknowledged they were based on information he had read and heard, saying the claims should ultimately be tested against the official records. Thus far there has been silence by the EPA and the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission on the President’s farm.
Meanwhile, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party executive Odessa Primus has called on President Ali to publicly release documents detailing how his livestock farm at Long Creek near to St. Cuthbert’s Mission was financed, arguing that a tour of the property alone would not answer questions surrounding the investment.
In a video statement yesterday, Primus said the President should disclose loan agreements, banking records and other documents showing how the farm was acquired and developed, following his assertion that the operation was financed through bank loans.
She questioned how the President could have qualified for loans sufficient to finance a multi-billion-dollar investment, particularly during the period before he assumed the presidency.
Primus also urged that all media houses be granted unrestricted access to the President’s proposed tour of the farm, saying journalists should be allowed to examine the operation and seek answers on its financing and the approvals obtained for its development.
She maintained that the issue was not whether the President was entitled to accumulate wealth, but whether the farm was established through lawful and transparent means.
Primus further argued that if any wrongdoing is ultimately established, it should prompt wider scrutiny of public officials, while stressing that the relevant financial and official records should be made public to determine whether all legal and regulatory requirements were met.
It was WIN Leader and Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed who first raised the issue of the President’s farm on Sunday.
Yesterday, the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) called for an independent Commission of Inquiry into Ali’s reported 150-acre livestock farm, arguing that investigators should determine how the property was acquired, whether state resources were used in its development and if the office of the Presidency conferred any benefits that facilitated its establishment or expansion.
In a statement, the GTUC said the inquiry should operate independently of the Executive and be empowered to summon witnesses, examine public records, receive expert evidence and review the involvement of state agencies.
The commission, it said, should examine issues including the use of public resources, tax obligations, concessions, regulatory approvals and any other advantages that may have been derived from holding public office. It also said the inquiry should consider whether managing a private commercial enterprise of that scale is compatible with the responsibilities of the Presidency.
The GTUC said the controversy should not be viewed through a partisan lens, maintaining that the matter raises broader questions about transparency, accountability and conflicts of interest in public office.
The organisation also called for the immediate withdrawal of the 2026 Former Presidents’ Benefits Bill, contending that the proposed legislation would remove existing limits on benefits for former Heads of State while exposing taxpayers to potentially unlimited financial obligations.
It argued that expanding post-presidential benefits would be inappropriate at a time when many Guyanese continue to face a high cost of living despite the country’s economic growth.
The GTUC further rejected arguments that the President’s longstanding interest in farming adequately addresses public concerns, saying questions remain over the reported scale of the ranch, the circumstances surrounding its development and the need for full public disclosure.
It urged the Government to support an independent inquiry and called on the public to back measures aimed at strengthening transparency, accountability and good governance.
On Tuesday, PNCR/APNU and the AFC joined calls for the President to publicly disclose details of his assets and the financing of his Long Creek farm.
PNCR/APNU said the President must “state unequivocally whether he is the beneficial owner of the farm lands in question.”
The opposition party also called on Ali to make “full disclosure of his income, assets, liabilities, and the financial arrangements associated with these lands,” arguing that, as President, he has “a fiduciary responsibility to the people of this country” and is obliged to uphold “the highest standards of transparency and accountability.”
It said the public was entitled to know how the wealth associated with the property was acquired and whether all declarations required by law had been made.
And the Alliance For Change (AFC) also called for an independent investigation into the Long Creek property, saying the President should disclose details relating to the acquisition of the lands and the financing of the farm’s development, maintenance and operations.
The AFC further urged agencies it said may have been involved in the transaction, including the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission, Guyana Power and Light and any financial institution, to publicly disclose their roles.
The party argued that, as a politically exposed person, Ali should demonstrate that he did not improperly use his office in relation to financing or resources connected to the farm.
According to sources, the farming lands were the subject of inquiries during the former APNU+AFC administration after questions arose over the lease granted to Ali while he served as Minister of Housing.
Sources said investigators had trouble obtaining complete information relating to the property, including documentation identifying the precise location of the lands.
Standing on a road near the property on Sunday, Mohamed presented what he described as conservative estimates for the cost of the farm’s infrastructure, buildings, machinery, livestock and agricultural operations, claiming the investment exceeded $2.2 billion.
Mohamed said that a presidential salary of approximately $3.7 million per month could not finance such an investment and called on Ali to explain when the property was acquired, how much land he controls in the area, how it was financed and whether any conflicts of interest arose from his office. He also questioned whether the necessary approvals, including environmental authorisations, had been obtained for the development.
Responding while on an official visit to St Lucia, Ali dismissed the allegations, saying he had “nothing to hide” and announced that upon his return to Guyana he would invite members of the media to visit the farm. The President had not spoken publicly about the farm before.
Discussion