According to the BBC, the highest paid political leader is Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong with a monthly salary of US$233,333, followed by John Lee, the Chief Executive Officer of Hong Kong – U$$60,000, and Switzerland’s President – US$50,500. The average salary in Singapore is US$4,569 per month, less than what the Prime Minister earns per day! It has been argued that this arrangement provides an incentive not to indulge in corrupt behaviour. Singapore has been rated as the least corrupt country in the Asia-Pacific region on Transparency International 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index and third in the world with a score of 84 out of 100.
In Guyana, the reported monthly salary of the President is G$3.7 million tax free, equivalent to US$17,746, at a time when: (i) the private sector monthly minimum wage is G$60,147; (ii) 58 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, with 32 percent in extreme poverty; (iii) old age pension is $46,000 per month; and (iv) minimum National Insurance payment of G$43,075 per month. The President’s salary works out to be about 60 times that of the private sector minimum wage. Corruption has become endemic and the single major issue for the country in recent years, with corrupt behaviour among politicians and bureaucrats being exposed on a regular basis.
During his inaugural address on 7 September 2025, the President asserted that ‘corruption undermines the efficiency, fairness, and credibility of public service’ and that it is for this reason a dedicated Anti-Corruption Unit will be established, tasked with ‘excising this cancer from our institutions and holding public officials to the highest standards of integrity’. He stated that every official will be required to account for his/her personal assets, and anyone who cannot do so will face the full force of the law. The President also promised that the procurement system will be strengthened to promote wider participation and ensure accountability and transparency.
Regrettably, one year on, we are yet to see progress towards the establishment of this Unit, the strengthening of the functioning of the Integrity Commission and reforming of the procurement system. Last week, the Vice-President held a meeting with senior government officials on procurement, accountability and oversight matters, urging strict compliance with the relevant legislation, rules and regulations, and indicating that breaches will not be tolerated. However, no mention was made about reforming our public financial management systems which are in dire need of review and upgrading. It is public knowledge that the procurement system is badly broken.
Since February 2025, the United States has significantly expanded its policy of transferring persons from its jurisdiction to countries other than those they are originally from. Six such persons have since arrived in Guyana, while Dominica received five Colombians who have since been returned to their country. The Dominican authorities agreed to accept not more seven persons every quarter.
Relocation agreements with more than 30 countries
So far, the United States entered into new agreements with more than 30 countries for the removal of persons who Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as ‘the worst people we have ever interacted with…some of the most despicable human beings…a bunch of perverts, paedophiles and child rapists’. The countries involved include 12 African states – Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Uganda; 15 countries in the Americas – Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia; and three from other regions. Notable absent from the list of Caribbean countries are: The Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago.
It is estimated that around 15,000 persons were removed to these countries in 2025, 13,000 of whom to Mexico. Individuals who wish to return voluntarily to their country of origin may request the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to assist in doing so.
Amnesty International’s concerns
According to Amnesty International, the practice of transferring persons to third countries continues to be discriminatory and in violation of fundamental rights, including the absence of due process before their removal. Some of the individuals are arbitrarily detained in the country of destination and many struggle to access independent legal support.
Amnesty International has called on the US government to stop sending people to countries where they risk being arbitrarily detained and/or sent back to danger in their country of origin. All those removed to third countries should be re-admitted into the United States and provided full reparation. Additionally, the receiving countries should immediately release all individuals who have been arbitrarily detained and ensure access to a fair and efficient asylum process. Further, all other nations should deny the US government’s cruel and inhumane mass deportation campaign any form of facilitation, cooperation or tolerance. They should denounce the removals as unlawful and condemn in the strongest terms their xenophobic and racialized impacts.
Last Tuesday, CNN carried a report from the Inspector-General of the Department of Homeland Security on the treatment of inmates at the “Alligator Alcatraz” Detention Facility where they were kept shackled in 4 ft. x 4 ft x 6ft.. metal cages. According to the Inspector-General, ‘the use of such restrictive spaces is highly unconventional and does not align with standards for humane treatment’. And a tour of the Facility by Amnesty International in September 2025 found ‘inhuman and unsanitary conditions’, including overflowing toilets ‘with fecal matter seeping into where people are sleeping’, and exposure to insects and lights 24 hours a day.
Guyana’s involvement
Despite the concerns raised by Amnesty International and other international groups, Guyana has recently concluded a one-year migration cooperation framework with the United States. The first batch of persons, comprising four Cubans and two Afghans, has since arrived in the country. According to a joint statement by the United States and Guyana, the arrangement is a temporary one, with Guyana receiving a limited number of vetted, skilled and non-criminal individuals through the IOM Assisted Voluntary Return Programme. The statement added that Guyana retains the right to reject anyone proposed for relocation, with the United States bearing the cost and the IOM providing accommodation and support. So far, an estimated 144 persons are to be relocated to Guyana, though this information did not come from official sources. Apart from the joint statement issued, the Authorities in Guyana have not released any further statement on the matter.
Key stakeholders’ concerns
Since the arrival of the six persons in Guyana, key stakeholders have raised several issues. These include: the general lack of transparency in the decision-making process; failure so far to release to the public the agreement; the absence of public consultation, the non-involvement of the National Assembly; reliance on the IOM to administer the agreement which does not exempt Guyana of its constitutional responsibilities; and the apparent lack of institutional capacity to properly manage and monitor the programme. It is to be noted that the agreement was negotiated over several months, yet Guyanese were kept in the dark. Accordingly, there have been calls for the Government to release the agreement in its entirety, subject only to legitimate privacy protections for the individuals involved.
According to the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), the failure to publish the agreement is troubling, considering the serious concerns surrounding the methods employed by U.S. Authorities, including aggressive arrests of migrants and asylum-seekers in public spaces. Additionally, the implementation of an unpublished agreement is ‘totally contrary to the letter and spirit of open and lawful governance, a long-standing aspiration of the Guyanese people who have seen breach after breach, illegal conduct after illegal conduct…’. GHRA also contends that the Government’s decision could breach Article 141(1) of the Constitution, which states that ‘[n]o person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment’.
Former President Donald Ramotar added his voice by describing the programme as “disgraceful” and rejecting claims that Guyana and other recipient states stand to benefit from the supposed skills of deportees. There have also been calls for the matter to be debated in the Assembly since ‘any arrangement affecting Guyana’s immigration system, sovereignty and international obligations should not have been concluded without parliamentary scrutiny’. Additionally, questions have been raised as to the maximum number of persons to be received, their legal status, employment rights, the arrangements for their eventual departure, and what happens after the agreement expires in a year’s time.
Some stakeholders, however, view the situation somewhat differently. They argue that there is nothing inherently objectionable about Guyana helping people caught in difficult circumstances; Guyanese should not be indifferent to the plight of these persons; and there is no justification for treating them as criminals. What is, however, lacking is the transparency and accountability for the arrangement.
Yesterday, the President announced that he would be meeting with foreign relations and economic services committees of the Assembly. No doubt, the deportee agreement with the United States will be discussed. The political Opposition, however, indicated that it would be boycotting the meetings because of not only the absence of an agenda and supporting documents but also persistent attempts to sideline the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever the personal differences between the President and the Leader of the Opposition, these should not be allowed to prevent the President from discharging his constitutional duties relating to consultation and/or agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on important matters concerning the affairs of the State.
The main Opposition party, WIN, issued a statement indicating that, while it respects the Office of the President, this does not require disregard for the constitutional role of Parliament or the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. It asserted that the President is not the state; the Executive is not Parliament; and the Opposition is not the enemy of Guyana. WIN added that the party remains willing to engage with the Executive, where such engagement is conducted with transparency and proper respect for the institutions of our democracy. It further asserted that:
Our democracy requires more than elections. It requires respect for Parliament, respect for political opposition, respect for human dignity, and the freedom of citizens to disagree with those in power without fear.
Few will disagree with the above statement.
To be continued
Discussion