Transparency International Guyana (TI Guyana) yesterday called for an independent investigation into President Irfaan Ali’s ownership of a livestock farm at Long Creek, saying the allegations surrounding the property raise “urgent and serious questions” about conflicts of interest, the possible misuse of public resources and compliance with the Integrity Act.
The call follows allegations made on Sunday by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, who questioned the financing, ownership and scale of a farm owned by the President along the Soesdyke-Linden Highway.
The anti-corruption body said the issues surrounding the President’s reported ownership of the facility should be subjected to an “immediate, fair, and impartial investigation” and warned that failure to address them could have lasting consequences for Guyana’s international reputation.
“Transparency International Guyana is alarmed by recent reports indicating that President Mohamed Irfaan Ali owns a substantial livestock farm at Long Creek. These revelations raise urgent and serious questions about (possible) conflicts of interest, misuse of public resources, and violations of the Public Integrity Act,” the organisation said in a statement.
It added that the allegations “risk further eroding global confidence in Guyana’s governance and investment climate.”
“If left unaddressed, these matters will have long-term negative consequences for the nation’s reputation as a stable, transparent, and attractive investment destination,” the statement said.
TI Guyana said the investigation should examine four principal areas beginning with whether the President’s ownership of the property creates a conflict with his constitutional and official responsibilities.
It said investigators should determine “whether the President’s ownership of the Long Creek farm creates a conflict with official duties” and whether ownership of the property “was disclosed in accordance with applicable law and public sector transparency standards.”
The organisation also called for a thorough examination of whether state assets or public resources may have been used in connection with the operation of the farm.
Among the issues it said should be investigated are “any use of state property, personnel, funds, or privileges that may have benefited the farm or the President personally” and whether there were “instances where state resources were diverted for private gain.”
TI Guyana further urged investigators to assess whether any actions associated with the property breached the Integrity Act or any other relevant legislation governing the conduct of public office holders.
It said too that the inquiry should “recommend corrective or disciplinary measures where breaches are found.”
The organisation also called for scrutiny of whether the property received favourable treatment because of the President’s office.
It said investigators should “examine any evidence of preferential treatment, regulatory leniency, or other advantages afforded to the farm because of the President’s position” and determine whether official duties “were performed in a manner that improperly advantaged private interests.”
Independent
Recognising that any local investigation could attract criticism over its independence, TI Guyana proposed that the inquiry be conducted by external investigators.
“To ensure impartiality and to remove any perception of bias, TI Guyana invites Transparency International member chapters and independent experts from other jurisdictions to lead and conduct the investigation,” the organisation said.
It stressed that it would not seek to direct such an inquiry.
“TI Guyana will serve strictly in a consultative and facilitative capacity, providing local context and logistical support while ceding investigative independence to external experts.”
The organisation said it remains committed to “the orderly, transparent, and structured development of Guyana,” the rule of law, public accountability and “equal application of ethics standards for all public officials.”
It argued that a transparent investigation was necessary not only to determine the facts but also to preserve confidence in Guyana’s governance.
“The Government of Guyana must address these allegations with alacrity,” the statement said.
“Continued obfuscation or attempts to gaslight the public will only deepen domestic mistrust and further damage Guyana’s international standing. The evidence published to date is serious and demands full, transparent scrutiny.”
Video
In a 23-minute video posted on his Facebook page, Mohamed on Sunday alleged that the property comprises a 150-acre livestock and agricultural estate containing poultry facilities, cattle and sheep operations, hydroponic greenhouses, orchards, aquaculture ponds, staff quarters, heavy equipment and a luxury residence. Using what he repeatedly described as conservative estimates, Mohamed claimed the development represented an investment exceeding $2.2 billion.
He questioned how such a project could have been financed on a presidential salary and also raised issues relating to possible conflicts of interest, environmental approvals, access to public infrastructure and regulatory oversight.
Speaking on Sunday from Saint Lucia, where he is attending the 51st CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting, Ali did not respond directly to any of Mohamed’s allegations.
Instead, in a brief video posted on social media, he said the public would be invited to visit the property after his return to Guyana.
“You have a President who practises what he preach. When I come back home we will go to the farm live and you will see how to do agriculture and you will see all that we do there,” Ali said.
However, he did not address the specific questions raised by Mohamed concerning the acquisition of the lands, financing of the development, possible conflicts of interest or whether all regulatory approvals had been obtained.
As of yesterday afternoon, there had still been no official response from the Office of the President to the substantive allegations.
Questions sent to the Head of the President’s Public Relations Department, Suelle Findlay-Williams, seeking a response from the President have gone unanswered.
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. The lease was reportedly signed by then President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Sources said investigators had trouble obtaining complete information relating to the property, including documentation identifying the precise location of the lands.
TI Guyana said the issues raised by the recent disclosures extend beyond the ownership of a single property.
Rather, it argued, they concern public confidence in the country’s governance framework and the equal application of standards to all public officials.
“The evidence published to date is serious and demands full, transparent scrutiny,” the organisation reiterated, adding that an independent investigation is essential to safeguard both public trust and Guyana’s reputation internationally.
Discussion