Dear Editor,
I write with disappointment following reports of former President and General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo’s remarks at the night of reflection in honour of the late Comrade Robert Herman Orlando Corbin, CCH, former Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and Leader of the Opposition.
I was present at the gathering. However, sitting towards the far rear under the tents, myself and others in close proximity were at a disadvantage because the audio was not sufficiently clear for us to hear the proceedings properly. My comments are therefore based on what has subsequently been reported in the media.
While I respect the solemnity of the occasion and acknowledge that political differences should not prevent us from honouring the deceased, I must express my disappointment at the reported remarks and invite the public to consider them against the historical record.
There is a troubling reality in politics and public life; while some people are alive, they are subjected to attacks on their character, accusations, misrepresentation and attempts to undermine their reputations. Yet, when they die, some of those who opposed or criticised them find it necessary to attend their wakes, nights of reflection and funeral services to deliver glowing tributes.
Of course, political opponents can disagree and still have mutual respect. However, the true test of respect is not simply what we say about someone after their death, but how we treat them and whether we honour their principles while they are alive.
Jagdeo reportedly spoke favourably about Corbin’s leadership and vision for Guyana, including the need for political cooperation. This raises a fundamental question: if Jagdeo genuinely recognised Corbin’s vision for shared governance, why were the commitments associated with their engagement not fully realised?
An October 18, 2026, article in Village Voice News, titled “Jeffrey Questions Jagdeo’s Commitment to Corbin’s Shared Governance Agreement,” revisits the 2003 Constructive Engagement Agreement between then President Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Corbin. The agreement addressed parliamentary and constitutional reform, accountability and greater political inclusion.
The concerns surrounding the implementation of that agreement deserve serious consideration. Political agreements cannot be judged merely by the words signed or the promises made. Their real value lies in whether commitments are honoured and meaningful changes are delivered.
Shared governance cannot be reduced to a convenient expression invoked when political leaders gather to mourn a former opponent. It must be demonstrated through respect for democratic institutions, meaningful parliamentary oversight, transparency, accountability and a genuine commitment to ensuring that all Guyanese have a stake in their country’s development.
This brings me to another important question; what does shared governance mean when it comes to the management and distribution of Guyana’s oil wealth?
Guyana is now a major oil-producing nation, and the government has highlighted investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, housing and other sectors as evidence of the benefits of our growing petroleum resources. These investments must be assessed fairly, but their existence does not remove the public’s right to question whether the benefits are reaching citizens equitably.
Are working families coping with the cost of living? Are young people finding decent employment and opportunities to build sustainable futures? Are pensioners and vulnerable citizens adequately supported? Are residents of hinterland, riverain, rural and underserved communities receiving their fair share of national development?
These are legitimate questions, not acts of disloyalty to Guyana. Economic growth, large budgets and major infrastructure announcements must ultimately translate into improved living conditions, better public services and sustainable opportunities for our people.
I cannot say with certainty what Corbin would have said about every decision being made today. However, given his advocacy for shared governance and political inclusion, it is reasonable to ask whether he would have demanded greater accountability, transparency in public expenditure and a fairer distribution of the benefits arising from our natural resources.
Would he have accepted a situation in which political affiliation or proximity to power determined who enjoyed the greatest opportunities? Would he not have pressed for a system in which every Guyanese, regardless of ethnicity, political persuasion or geographical location, could participate in and benefit from national development?
These questions should prompt serious reflection by Jagdeo and his colleagues. Guyana’s oil wealth belongs to the nation, not to any political party or administration. The responsibility of those entrusted with governing is to manage these resources transparently, ensure value for public money and protect the interests of present and future generations.
If Jagdeo wishes to invoke Corbin’s legacy as a reason for political cooperation, then he and his colleagues must also reflect on whether their own actions uphold the principles of inclusion, accountability and shared national development. Cooperation cannot mean asking the opposition to endorse the government’s decisions without meaningful scrutiny. Nor can it mean speaking of unity while avoiding difficult questions about the management of our national patrimony.
I am reminded of the biblical teaching in 1 John 3:18: “Let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”
This scripture speaks directly to the distinction between words and deeds. It is easy to speak well of a man after his passing. The greater test is whether we respected his convictions, engaged him honestly and acted in good faith when he was alive and able to hold us accountable.
As a Guyanese by birth and one who has a passion for my country, I firmly believe that citizens have a right and a responsibility to question those who govern, whether or not they hold public office. Accountability and transparency must remain fundamental principles of our democracy.
Let us honour Robert Corbin not merely through tributes and carefully chosen words, but by examining the principles for which he advocated and demanding that our leaders give them practical effect.
Jagdeo and his colleagues have an opportunity to demonstrate that the words spoken in Corbin’s honour represent more than a ceremonial tribute. They can do so by strengthening accountability, respecting democratic institutions and ensuring that Guyana’s unprecedented natural-resource wealth creates meaningful and equitable benefits for all its people.
The true measure of Corbin’s legacy will not be found in the tributes delivered after his death, but in whether the principles he championed are respected and advanced while the nation continues its journey.
Yours faithfully,
Annette Ferguson
Discussion