Ali confuses renegotiation and contract sanctity — Melinda Janki — Opinion

Ali confuses renegotiation and contract sanctity

September 16, 2026·2 min read

Published in

Kiskadee Watch ·Sep 16, 2026

Dear Editor,

President Ali’s recent interview on Al-Jazeera^[1] was embarrassing.

He does not seem to understand the difference between renegotiation and sanctity of contract. He does not seem to understand his role as a head of state.

Sanctity of contract is simple – you have to do what you agreed to do in the contract. You cannot break a bargain because you don’t like it any more. Business depends on the simple proposition that you do what you promised to do in the contract or else you pay the other person for the loss they suffered because you broke your promise.

Renegotiation is an entirely different matter. The parties to an agreement were free to enter into the agreement. They are also free to come back and change it if they wish. If President Ali reads the Petroleum Agreement he will see that Article 31.2 of the Petroleum Agreement^[2] says: “This Agreement shall not be amended or modified in any respect except by written agreement entered into by all the Parties which shall state the date upon which the amendment or modification shall become effective.”

But renegotiation would be unwise. The three companies – Exxon, Hess and CNOOC – are here to make money for their investors. They will renegotiate if they get something advantageous. They will not (and should not as commercial entities) reduce the return to their investors unless there is some compelling legal or business reason to do so. In-country lamentations about exploitation and unfairness don’t count.

There is no guarantee that President Ali and his government will negotiate better than the Granger government. President Ali’s stewardship of Guyana’s energy sector has been unimpressive. Renegotiation is likely to make Guyana even worse off.

When President Ali said that he has to work within the existing agreement to obtain the “best possible returns” he is completely wrong. A president is not a businessman. He is a public servant. President Ali’s job is to serve the nation, including the hundreds of thousands of Guyanese who did not vote for the PPP/C party. He must ensure that Exxon, Hess and CNOOC fulfill their contract obligations and comply fully with national law.

Lastly President Ali and his government must be open and transparent so that when they fail, ordinary citizens can call them to account, can challenge and criticise them freely, and ultimately can go to court to uphold the rule of law.

Yours sincerely,
Melinda Janki

References

Erdogan: The Making of Modern Turkiye | Politics | Al Jazeera — www.aljazeera.com ↩
Canadian Sanctity of Contract case offers hope for Guyana: Part 4 - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩

Erdogan: The Making of Modern Turkiye | Politics | Al Jazeera

www.aljazeera.com · 2026-09-11

# Erdogan: The Making of Modern Turkiye | Politics | Al Jazeera Published: 2026-09-11T16:00:00+00:00 Source: Al Jazeera (aljazeera.com) Language: en ## Story Erdogan: The Making of Modern Turkiye | Politics | Al Jazeera # Erdogan: The Making of Modern Turkiye An exclusive interview with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Turkiye’s foreign policy, regional conflicts and 25 years of AK Party rule. At a time of global upheaval, one man has redrawn Turkiye’s political map. In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reflects on more than two decades in power. His rise began in the early 1990s, when he was elected mayor of Istanbul. He founded the Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, in 2001 and has won every election since then. After three terms as prime minister, he was elected president in 2014 and remains in office to date. Marking the 25th anniversary of the AK Party, Erdogan talks to Al Jazeera Arabic’s Ali Al Dafiri about Turkiye’s growing role in the shifting geopolitical landscape, highlighting the recent defence deal he concluded with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He addresses the US-Israel war on Iran, advocating for open maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz while identifying Israel as the primary driver of the regional conflict. He also affirms Turkiye’s solid support for Syria’s new administration and his unwavering solidarity with Lebanon and Gaza. On a domestic level, Erdogan reflects on Turkiye’s sweeping economic transformation and its future, stating that European Union accession is no longer a priority. Published On 11 Sep 2026 11 Sep 2026

Canadian Sanctity of Contract case offers hope for Guyana: Part 4 - Stabroek News

www.stabroeknews.com · 2024-12-28

Article 31.2 of the 2016 Agreement is not a mere aspirational provision – it creates binding obligations on Guyana and the oil companies. The provision requires them to consult on modifications and amendments proposed by either. This is a positive obligation: neither party can refuse to engage in good-faith discussions on proposals by the other party. While Exxon may ultimately reject any change proposed by the Government or make its counterproposal, an outright refusal to enter negotiations represents a distinct breach. It is the same principle when Exxon seeks a force majeure or any other proposal. Guyana does not have to agree, or it may suggest an amendment to the proposal. However, it is required to consider the request in good faith since failure will trigger arbitration. ... ExxonMobil’s categorical public declaration through its local President opposing any renegotiation potentially constitutes a breach of this contractual obligation. Such an unconditional refusal contradicts the fundamental purpose of Article 31.2, which contemplates periodic review and potential modification as circumstances warrant. This breach would provide grounds for Guyana to initiate arbitration proceedings. ... The obligation for good faith engagement in contract modifications extends beyond Guyana’s Agreement. It represents a cornerstone principle of contract law, firmly established across both common law and civil law jurisdictions. This universal principle gains particular force in Guyana’s case, as amendments are explicitly enshrined within the Agreement, creating an even more compelling position than that established in the Churchill Falls case. ... This breach assumes critical significance when viewed against the Agreement’s fundamental defects previously analysed. The glaring absence of ring-fencing provisions, the unprecedented requirement for government payment of ExxonMobil’s taxes, and the extraordinary subordination of parliamentary sovereignty to an agreement secured under demonstrable and well-documented duress collectively constitute compelling grounds for pursuing modifications under Article 31.2. ... The Agreement’s dispute resolution provisions provide multiple avenues for addressing ExxonMobil’s refusal to engage in good faith discussions—from formal dispute notification to arbitration proceedings. However, before pursuing such measures, the government must adequately document both the grounds for seeking modifications and ExxonMobil’s refusal to engage in meaningful discussions. ... The key is transforming ExxonMobil’s blanket refusal from a negotiating position into evidence of a breach. This requires careful documentation of attempts to initiate discussions and the company’s responses, creating a record demonstrating their violation of Article 31.2’s obligations. ... Enforcing Article 31.2 aims to secure meaningful improvements in the Agreement’s terms beyond winning a legal argument. The threat of legal action should serve as leverage to compel ExxonMobil to negotiate. Guyana’s position is strengthened because many proposed modifications reflect standard industry practices, such as ring-fencing provisions common in global petroleum agreements. ExxonMobil’s refusal to discuss such standard terms undermines its good faith claim. ... ExxonMobil’s categorical refusal to consider modifications could ultimately backfire. Article 31.2 creates legal obligations that cannot be dismissed by mere refusal. An adequately documented case would transform the obstacle from their intransigence to our opportunity.