Controversial Attorney-at-Law: Govt hints at probe into Nigel Hughes’ involvement in 2016 oil contract negotiations

– VP Jagdeo calls out new AFC Leader over blatant disregard of conflict of interest

The Guyana Government could investigate the involvement of newly elected Alliance For Change leader, Nigel Hughes, in the negotiations of the controversial 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with ExxonMobil following the emergence of new evidence that points to blatant conflict of interest.
The 2016 oil contract for the Stabroek Block, which has been heavily criticised as lopsided, was negotiated and signed under the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Government – a process led by then Natural Resources Minister, Raphael Trotman, who was also leader AFC at the time.

There were claims of conflict of interests between Trotman and Hughes, who was also the AFC Chairman at that time while his law firm – Hughes, Fields & Stoby – represented ExxonMobil and its co-ventures during the negotiations.
However, the controversial lawyer had denied that there were any conflicts since he had already resigned from the party when he was representing the oil companies.
But Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo during a press conference on Thursday highlighted “telling” details contained in various reports done back then that contradict this.
He first referred to the report done by United Kingdom-based global law firm, Clyde & Co., which disclosed that Hughes resigned as AFC Chairman on April 11, 2016 – just three days before the concluding stages of the contract negotiations.
According to the report that was commissioned by the Coalition Government to defend the oil contract it signed with Exxon – a deal many industry experts said has left Guyana short-changed with sweeping benefits going to the US oil major and its partners, those negotiations began almost a year earlier in May 2015 while Hughes was still serving at the helm of the AFC.
In that report, it was noted that Exxon, through its local affiliate – Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) – sent a proposed Escrow Process Flow Chart on May 19, 2015, setting out various timelines for the execution of a PSA which eventually led to the 2016 agreement.
“So, in the period from May 2015 when Nigel Hughes was still Chairman of the Party, the negotiations started because their own report said that Exxon sent this document over, proposing a timeline and the set of issues to be negotiated, that would eventually be the [2016] PSA.”
“So, Nigel Hughes lied about this when asked by Global Witness… He said to Global Witness “Oh, I was not Exxon lawyer when Trotman was minister.” But that was not true. Eleven months after Trotman became a minister, that’s when he resigned. So, here is the [Leader] of the party negotiating with Exxon, and the Chairman of the party is Exxon’s lawyer,” the Vice President pointed out.
He added that the PSA and bridging deed, both have Hughes’ law firm listed as Exxon’s and its co-venturer’s local office.

Probe into negotiations
Nevertheless, in light of these revelations, Jagdeo hinted at the possibility of an investigation into the conflict of interest during the contract negotiation.
“This may necessitate… a formal investigation into all these matters. I’m making it clear today… It was not an issue before because he would’ve said we’re discriminating against Nigel Hughes and why couldn’t he earn a living? That’s their first thing… What has changed is now he has gone to the AFC [leadership]. I think it’s the best for us, he’s the Leader of the AFC,” the Vice President asserted.
Moreover, VP Jagdeo noted that Exxon and its partners will also have to answer on this matter.
Since his election to the AFC leadership post last weekend, Hughes has been embroiled in controversy over his professional and political careers.
This was further compounded when he told local news agency, Demerara Waves Online, that he would continue to defend his client’s interest even against Guyana and would only leave the law firm if he is elected president of the country.
At the time when he made these remarks, VP Jagdeo had pointed to the potential risks that the new AFC Leader’s posture could bring, that is, as a politically exposed person (PEP) as defined in the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act 2009.
But some have argued that there is no law against politically exposed persons, the Vice President argued on Thursday that “…It’s what’s ethical…”
“This is someone aspiring to the highest office in the country, who has just been elected as the leader of a party. He wants to be the presidential candidate but says ‘if there is a conflict between Guyana now and ExxonMobil… I will defend my client’.”
Jagdeo further highlighted that politicians often have to put national interest above their personal benefit.
“I did not want to return to politics in Guyana. I had started a pretty lucrative career in the period after I left office. But I returned and I lost [money over] it. Sometimes, you have to forgo the private benefits – money basically when national interest calls you…”
“Nigel Hughes, knowing him, he will not want to resign. He’ll want to collect the money and still be the leader of the AFC and conflict of interest would not bother him at all… We have a duplicitous person who likes to talk about national interests… But then here money comes above the country,” the VP pointed out.
Shortly after the Vice President’s presser, Hughes told another section of the media, “I welcome any probe, investigation, or Commission of Inquiry, that Mr. Jagdeo wants to initiate between Exxon and myself. There is a lot of information that may come out that I think would be very useful and I welcome it, I certainly welcome it. I don’t wish to prejudge anything, but we (AFC) will be having a press conference tomorrow at 1:30 and we will go into details, but certainly for the Firm, I could say that the Firm has many lawyers in it, and it would be very interesting what a probe might disclose”.
In December 2018, when the no-confidence motion was passed in the National Assembly against the David Granger Administration, Hughes had sparked a contentious debate, exacerbated by legal and procedural challenges that had significantly delayed the country’s electoral process. Central to this debate was Hughes’ argument that, mathematically, one-half of the House when divided stands at 32.5 members.
“There is no such thing as a half member, so half of the House is 33 members…this is because you have to round up to identify half of the House,” he had said, mere days after the no-confidence motion was passed. Therefore, he posited that 34 is the majority of the 65-member House rather than 33.
The aftermath of the motion as a result of this argument had been marked by legal challenges, appeals, and judicial decisions that extended beyond the constitutionally mandated three-month deadline. In June 2019, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) handed down its decision that 33, not 34, was the majority of the 65-member House. (G-8)