Of the $9.4 billion allocated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, $800 million has been designated for legal expenses, other fees, and the international public relations campaign related to the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy.
The $9.4 Billion was approved by the Committee of Supply in the National Assembly on Monday, after Foreign Affairs Minister, Hugh Todd would have fielded questions from the parliamentary opposition.
Opposition Member of Parliament Dr Karen Cummings, a former Foreign Affairs Minister in the APNU/AFC administration, queried the foreign policy development programme, where there is an increase in the budgetary allocation from $733.1 Million in 2024 to $804.8 Million in 2025. As the Minister explained it, this increase will help cater for a number of things, including legal fees.
“Mr Chairman, bank charges, advocacy, public relations services, legal and consultancy, upgrade and maintenance of websites, insurance of diplomatic staff, residences and chancellery,” Todd explained.
Foreign Affairs Minister, Hugh Todd
The minister would also assure that they have retained an international firm to pilot an international public relations campaign that would sensitize the world on Guyana’s position on its border controversy with Venezuela.
This is in addition to the work being done by the ministry’s in-house PR team and according to the minister, their PR work will cover regions one, two, seven, eight and nine, as well as on the coastland.
“The international firm, that is covered under advocacy. But we also have an in-house PR committee that we use locally for our PR campaign. And we do have a programme,” Todd explained.
Meanwhile, Opposition MP, Annette Ferguson queried the increased allocation for security services as compared to 2024. According to Todd, this increase has to do with the appointment of Heads of Mission who would require 24-hour security.
The Guyana/ Venezuela border controversary, in which Venezuela has unjustly laid claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s sovereign territory, has drawn significant international attention, with the United Nations (UN) referring the matter to the ICJ in 2018 after diplomatic negotiations failed to yield a resolution.
Shortly after, Guyana filed a case seeking a final and binding judgement to reinforce that the 1899 Arbitral Award remains valid and binding on all parties, and legal affirmation that the Essequibo region, which contains much of Guyana’s natural resources, belongs to Guyana, and not Venezuela.
The Foreign Affairs Ministry
Guyana continues to uphold its commitment to international law and the rule of law through the ICJ. Last year, the country submitted its final written brief in its ongoing legal case against Venezuela. Carl Greenidge, Guyana’s agent before the ICJ, has projected that a ruling could be possible by 2026.
Earlier in January 2025, Carl Greenidge, Guyana’s agent before ICJ as it adjudicates the Guyana/ Venezuela border controversy, had said that a ruling on the issue would be possible by next year, since the major substantive issues have already been put to the court for consideration.
It was only recently that President Dr Irfaan Ali held discussions with United States (US) Secretary of State Marco Rubio, where they discussed, among other things, Guyana’s border controversy with Venezuela.
The US State Department had confirmed that during their call, Secretary Rubio reaffirmed the US’s unwavering support for Guyana’s territorial integrity in the face of escalating tensions with Venezuela.
This came in response to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s announcement on January 7, 2025, that there would be an election of a “Governor of Guayana Esequiba,” a move condemned by the Guyanese Government as a direct violation of the Argyle Agreement signed in December 2023.
Guyana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had expressed grave concern over Venezuela’s actions, labeling them a “flagrant violation” of international law and a direct breach of the ICJ’s binding order from December 2023.
The order explicitly stated that both Guyana and Venezuela must avoid escalating tensions or taking unilateral actions that could complicate the resolution process. (G3)