Nigel Hughes’s conflict of interest: AFC backpedals on 2016 PSA review stance

…now weighs Exxon’s interests after previously prioritising only Guyana’s benefits

After previously maintaining that any review of the controversial 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) signed while it was in office should ensure benefits for the Guyanese people, the Alliance For Change (AFC) is now taking the interest of United States oil giant ExxonMobil into consideration.
At that party’s press conference on Friday, AFC Chairman David Patterson was asked about the party’s position on renegotiation of the 2016 oil contract, and he
responded, “We have always said, on the question of the PSA, we would love to review any document, any contract, in all sectors: not only in the oil and gas sector; not only limited to Exxon; (but) that (which) would be to the benefit of the Guyanese public…
“(On) the question of reviewing the [2016] PSA, obviously it has to be to the benefit of all, not only the people of Guyana; obviously it has to take cognisance of the pioneering work that Exxon has done.”

In the past, as recently as July, Patterson told reporters at a press conference that the AFC, a minority parliamentary opposition party, was in favour of any revision of the PSA which will be “to the benefit of the Guyanese public” – a position he had reiterated later that month without making any mention of the oil company.
But the AFC’s new position of placing Exxon’s interest in the fore comes in light of serious conflict-of-interest concerns regarding the party’s new leader, Nigel Hughes, and the oil company.
Hughes, an attorney-at-law who was elected to the helm of the AFC back in June, has faced mounting criticisms over the conflict-of-interest position that exists between his professional and political careers. Further, those criticisms have been exacerbated after the attorney said he would remain with his law firm of Hughes, Fields and Stoby — which has represented ExxonMobil in negotiations with the Government of Guyana, including on the lopsided 2016 oil contract — until he is elected to office; and would even put his client’s interest above the country’s.
Hughes later told reporters at an AFC press conference that he would keep the party’s oil and gas matters at arm’s length.

While ExxonMobil Guyana President Alistair Routledge has contended that the company does not believe there is any conflict of interest in being a client of the law firm of which Hughes is a partner, the Guyana Government believes this relationship constitutes a serious conflict of interest.
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has told reporters at a press conference in July that while Routledge is entitled to his opinion, this position would not fly with Government. He had also pointed to the obscenity of Hughes’s statements and argued that this could easily be turned into paying for policy influence.
“How could you, as a leader of a party, not pay attention or talk about oil and gas now in this contemporary context, when that’s one of the most topical issues…Exxon is a conflict party, too, because they have on their payroll in the country of Guyana the leader of a political party that is represented in the National Assembly [and] has a number of seats in the National Assembly, and therefore in a position to have a say on policies…How is this not a conflict of interest?” Jagdeo questioned.
Against this backdrop, the Vice President has assured that the Government of Guyana would be reaching out to the US oil major on this matter soon.
VP Jagdeo had previously hinted that there could be an investigation into Hughes’s involvement in the negotiations of the 2016 oil contract. He had cited what he described as some “telling” details that are contained in several reports done back then that contradict Hughes’s claim that he had already resigned from the AFC when his law firm was representing the oil company.

A report done by United Kingdom-based global law firm Clyde & Co revealed 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, commissioned by the coalition Government to defend the oil contract it signed with Exxon – a deal that many industry experts say 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, the junior party in the A Partnership for National Unity(APNU)-AFC coalition.
During a press conference in July – his first since being elected as AFC leader — Hughes had denied that there were any conflicts since he had never directly participated in the negotiation process. He had added that the Exxon account is handled by another partner at the law firm.
However, Jagdeo rubbished this explanation, pointing out that, as a partner, Hughes still benefits from the funding of the oil company. In fact, while Hughes is claiming that he has no direct dealing with Exxon, the Vice President showed that, just days prior, the Attorney had appeared virtually on a court case as one of the lawyers representing the oil company.
In addition to this conflict-of-interest issue, Hughes had sparked a contentious debate after the no-confidence motion was passed in the National Assembly against the David Granger-led coalition administration, back in December 2018, when he argued that 34 and not 33 was the majority of the 65-member Parliament, and so 33 yes votes were not enough to pass the motion. This argument was eventually dismissed by the High Court and Guyana’s final court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).