Scrutinising the launch of Guyana’s parallel Consumer Protection Institute

Dear Editor,
I write in response to the media statement issued on January 1st regarding the launch of a new Consumer Protection Institute in Guyana. This development, while ostensibly aimed at advancing consumer rights, warrants careful scrutiny given the context and the actors involved.
The institute in question is founded by individuals who are well-known political agents. This fact alone raises legitimate concerns about the true intent behind its establishment. In a society where the boundaries between civil society organisations and political interests are often blurred, it is imperative to question whether this institute will genuinely serve the interests of consumers or morph into yet another political NGO. The risk is that it may become a vehicle for pursuing personal vendettas against targeted entities, rather than advancing the public good.
While the founders have acknowledged the institute’s regulatory limitations, their stated functions closely mirror those of Guyana’s bona fide regulatory agency. This overlap is troubling. The existence of a parallel body with similar functions could undermine the authority and effectiveness of the official regulator, leading to confusion among consumers and businesses alike. It is essential to ask: What safeguards are in place to prevent this institute from usurping the role of the legitimate regulatory agency? Without clear boundaries, there is a real danger of regulatory fragmentation and diminished consumer protection.
Funding transparency: who pays, who benefits?
A critical issue that remains unaddressed is the source of funding for this institute. Transparency in funding is not merely a procedural matter – it is central to the credibility and integrity of any organisation claiming to act in the public interest.
If the institute intends to operate as a fee-based service for consumers, how will it ensure that vulnerable individuals are not exploited? There is a risk that the institute could become a marketing platform to mine consumer grievances and obtain work for legal representation, effectively transforming itself into a money-making enterprise for its founders. This concern is amplified by the fact that one of the founders is a legal practitioner, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and the commercialisation of consumer protection.
Alternatively, if corporates are to fund the institute, which companies will be involved? The nature of corporate sponsorship can significantly influence the agenda and priorities of an organisation. Will the institute be beholden to its corporate benefactors, thereby compromising its independence and objectivity? The public deserves to know which entities are backing this initiative and what their interests are.
If donor funds are to be solicited, from where will these funds originate? The source of donor funding can reveal much about the underlying agenda of an organisation. Is the institute seeking support from reputable international organisations, or are there less transparent sources at play? The answers to these questions will determine whether the institute is credible or pursuing a covert agenda.
If the institute claims to be self-funded, what is the financial model that sustains its operations? Is there sufficient transparency to assure the public that its activities are not driven by hidden interests?
The lack of clarity on funding sources is not a trivial matter. It goes to the heart of whether this institute will be a credible advocate for consumers or an unaccountable entity pursuing other objectives.
In view of the foregoing, for the institute to be taken seriously as a champion of consumer rights, it must demonstrate the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and independence. This includes:
• Publishing detailed information about its governance structure, funding sources, and decision-making processes, including its bylaws.
• Establishing clear boundaries between its activities and those of the official regulatory agency.
• Implementing robust safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest, especially given the involvement of legal practitioners among its founders.
• Engaging in regular, independent audits and making the results publicly available.
Without these measures, the institute risks being perceived as a political tool rather than a genuine advocate for consumer protection.
The launch of a parallel consumer protection institute in Guyana is a development that should not be accepted uncritically. The involvement of known political agents, the potential overlap with the functions of the official regulator, and the opacity surrounding funding all raise red flags. As citizens and stakeholders, we must demand transparency and accountability from any organisation that claims to represent our interests.
I urge the media, civil society, and the public at large to scrutinise the activities of this institute closely. Only through vigilance and informed debate can we ensure that consumer protection in Guyana is advanced in a manner that is credible, effective, and free from political or commercial manipulation.

Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin