Dear Editor,
The recent directive from Suriname’s President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons, to her nation’s political establishment arrived with the force of a hammer blow: declare your assets by a specific, immovable deadline or face immediate judicial intervention, including fines and jail time. This “no-nonsense” language is a refreshing antidote to the soft, lackadaisical approach that has regrettably characterized the enforcement of similar laws here in Guyana. While we share the same Caribbean geography and aspirations for good governance, our execution could not be more different.
Compare her drawing a line in the sand vs the current 231 Guyanese citizens in the employ of the Guyana’s Government that are yet to publicly declare their assets as mandated by law. Fines and/or imprisonment for non-compliance are stipulated. Historically, there is lean information that the transgressors were ever subjected to judicial intervention, fines and/or imprisonment.
Here in Guyana, we are not suffering from a lack of laws, but a lack of will. The legal framework governing asset declaration is the Integrity Commission Act (Chapter 19:12), passed in 1997. Let us be clear: the law is strict. It mandates that public officials, from the President down to Permanent Secretaries, declare their assets and liabilities annually. It even includes a “Code of Conduct”. Yet, while Suriname’s President threatens the cell, Guyana’s leadership has mostly resorted to gentle reminders.
Editor, now Guyana’s Integrity Commission has extended the deadline to June 22, 2026. Will Guyana’s Integrity Commission have the testicular fortitude to enforce the appropriate laws governing non-disclosure after the elapsed June 22, 2026, deadline?
The public waits with bated breath.
For the public to understand the weakness of our local application, one must look at the specifics of the law versus the reality of its enforcement:
The Government of Guyana has openly admitted to relying on a “shame-and-blame game”—publishing names in the newspaper to embarrass defaulters into compliance . Compare this shame game to the legal reality. Under Section 22 of the Integrity Commission Act, failure to declare is a criminal offense. A public officer who defaults is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not more than one year. Furthermore, a magistrate “shall order the person to make full disclosure,” and if they refuse, they face an additional $10,000 fine for every day the offense continues.
In Suriname, the President is signaling the jail is ready. In Guyana, despite the existence of these severe penalties for nearly three decades, the Integrity Commission has historically been toothless. The Commission was non-functional for years and even now struggles to verify the accuracy of the declarations it receives. We have laws for prison time, yet we rely on newspaper ads.
While acknowledging that the Government is currently reviewing the Act to introduce electronic declarations, Minister Gail Teixeira recently reiterated the strategy of publishing names to make defaulters “a little bit more sensitive”. Sensitivity is not a deterrent; the threat of prosecution is.
In contrast, the approach in Paramaribo treats the declaration date as a concrete legal deadline. The Guyanese approach treats it as a suggestion, followed by a “notice,” followed by a warning, followed by inaction. We have seen this play out repeatedly: the Integrity Commission publishes a list of defaulters (including high-profile MPs), notes that legal action is “imminent,” yet it remains unclear if any political figure has ever actually seen the inside of a jail cell for failing to file. The law says jail is mandatory; the practice says embarrassment is the ceiling.
Suriname’s President speaks of judicial intervention—implying a body that actively checks if the assets declared match the lifestyle lived. In Guyana, the Integrity Commission is tasked with verifying the accuracy of financial affairs, but critics have long called the commission “toothless”. The Act prohibits the Commission from divulging information, leaving the public in the dark regarding whether the declarations of ministers match the allegations of unexplained wealth.
The contrast is stark. In Suriname, the political establishment faces a firm hand and a deadline. In Guyana, the political establishment faces a soft touch and a suggestion. We have the laws—penalties of jail time and fines are already written in the books. What we lack is the ruthless, “no-nonsense” application demonstrated by our neighbor to the east.
We need President Ali to direct the Integrity Commission to enforce the law as written, not just hoping for compliance.