Dear Editor,
I observed that the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) has been in the press again and offer this perspective on the recent public letter from Mr. Vishnu Panday, dated November 25, 2025, that Corporation.[1]
While public discourse on national institutions is vital, a careful examination of the claims, alongside consultations with informed sources within the Corporation, reveals a narrative that may not fully align with documented operational histories as outlined by Mr. Panday. This discrepancy warrants a dispassionate analysis focused on institutional governance.
The central concern arising from this episode transcends individual grievances on the part of Mr. Panday that has nothing to do with the way the Corporation is being managed and administered by the Ministry of Agriculture; and let no one fool you, the Minister of Agriculture Mr. Zulfikar Mustapha is the boss at GuySuCo since he arrived in 2020. Every single senior appointment he made did not go through a professional HR process but was done in a rather strange imposing manner. His actions highlight potential systemic issues in appointment and reinstatement processes within GuySuCo.
Information suggests that Mr. Panday’s own career trajectory—marked by several departures and reappointments—may not have consistently adhered to standard corporate governance and human resource protocols. Reports indicate these personnel decisions were reportedly influenced by external political considerations, particularly from actors associated with Freedom House, rather than through independent corporate assessment.
Who appointed Mr. Panday within days of the return of the PPP to office in August 2020? Certainly not the professionals in the Corporation. This pattern of parachuting former officers who have a checkered history within the Corporation into the post 2020 operations of the Corporation, points to a deeper challenge of political patronage that has compromised operational integrity and merit-based advancement. It demoralized many younger professionals in the Corporation since they saw no road map to career advancement in the Corporation as these recycles keep coming and going and coming based on the whims and fancy of the Ministry of Agriculture. As one internal source opined, this dynamic may explain the current public divergence between Mr. Panday and his former political sponsors.
A notable aspect of the critique is its selective focus. The letter from Mr. Panday heavily criticizes the President (who has four more years) and two CEOs whom he worked with, who I am told have both departed GuySuCo’s daily operations, while omitting substantive evaluation of the former Board Chairman and now Minister of Public Works Mr. Madanlal Ramraj or the sitting Minister of Agriculture Mr. Zulfikar Mustapha.
These individuals held direct supervisory authority over Mr. Panday during the period in question. Furthermore, I am told by insiders that according to established reporting lines, the Agriculture Director reported to the Board on policy issues and the CEO on administrative matters. This sort of administrative structure is extremely abnormal.
Factual clarity is also essential. Contrary to the assertion of a resignation, an HR Professional inside the Corporation told me that the available records indicate Mr. Panday’s contract was not renewed—a distinct procedural difference from a resignation. Such discrepancies challenge the reliability of the narrative presented by Mr. Panday.
The irony of alleging political interference is unmistakable, as available accounts suggest Mr. Panday was reportedly a direct beneficiary of such practices. Insiders note his frequent, exclusive participation in high-level ministerial meetings at Regent Street in the Minister’s Boardroom without the two CEOs, therefore, bypassing the two CEOs—a privilege that raises questions about parallel reporting structures and accountability.
On technical matters, serious concerns have been raised by his former colleagues regarding the management of agricultural data. Multiple Estate Managers have told me of persistent, material variances between their field estimates and the figures subsequently presented to the Board by the Agriculture Directorate as the cane estimates. These alleged inaccuracies, which were reportedly not adequately scrutinized by the then-Board leadership, did represent a fundamental abandonment of their duty to make sound policy decisions. The Board of Directors is as much at fault for the state of affairs at GuySuCo as is the Minister of Agriculture since they created Mr. Panday, they minded and cared for him and they encourage his poor-leadership behaviours.
There could very well be a reason for this – the Skeldon connection.
The future of the sugar industry hinges on transparent governance, decisions grounded in accurate data, and equitable accountability. It is imperative that all stakeholders, including the current political oversight and the new parliamentary platform from which Mr. Panday now operates, commit to consistent, evidence-based scrutiny that leaves no entity or individual above examination. The APNU has failed to properly understand what really happened at Skeldon Estate over 2024-2025; it a clear case of fraud.
The nation expects and deserves a discourse focused on the sustainable future of this vital sector, free from the cycles of recrimination that have historically hindered progress.