A public exchange over the government’s planned investment drive for the Guyana Ammonia and Urea Plant Inc. (GAUP) and a gas bottling initiative has intensified, with commentator Joel Bhagwandin dismissing claims by financial analyst Christopher Ram that the process is “illegal.”
In a recent public letter, Bhagwandin argued that Ram’s conclusion is “premature” and rooted in a misunderstanding of how capital mobilisation unfolds.“
At present, the government has issued an Expression of Interest (EOI). By definition, an EOI is a preliminary market-sounding exercise,” Bhagwandin explained, stressing that such a step “does not constitute a prospectus” and does not create enforceable investor rights.
He maintained that Ram’s position assumes that a full securities offering is already in place, which he said is not the case.
“One cannot establish a breach of the Securities Industry Act in a vacuum where there is no defined financial instrument, no formal subscription terms, and no executed offering structure,” Bhagwandin wrote.
The analyst also addressed arguments surrounding the so-called “50-investor threshold,” which Ram reportedly used to suggest the entities would automatically qualify as public companies.
Bhagwandin countered that this interpretation is incomplete, noting that such thresholds only apply when there is an issued security and a defined ownership structure, conditions he said are not yet in place.
“Applying the SIA at this stage isn’t an application of law; it is a speculative extrapolation of a structure that does not yet exist,” he stated.
On the issue of oversight, Bhagwandin defended the involvement of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), saying both fall within the existing legal framework.
“NICIL is a state-owned entity subject to the Procurement Act. Any capital mobilisation it undertakes is governed by that very Act,” he said, adding that NPTAB’s role reflects “the standard operation of the existing legal framework.”
He rejected suggestions that NPTAB’s involvement represents an overreach, arguing that transactions of this scale naturally fall under its remit.
Bhagwandin further contended that legal conclusions cannot be drawn at a stage where the structure of the investment has not yet been finalised. “
“Legal obligations arise from executed transactions, not from preliminary discovery phases,” he said, adding that declaring illegality now is “methodologically unsound and lacks evidentiary basis.”
The letter also criticised what Bhagwandin described as a pattern in Ram’s commentaries, accusing him of relying on “partial readings of statutes” and reaching conclusions before sufficient evidence exists. He reiterated that the government’s move is still at a preliminary stage.
“The government’s invitation is a preliminary capital mobilisation exercise, not a completed securities offering,” Bhagwandin said, emphasising that compliance with the Securities Industry Act or Companies Act can only be assessed once the investment structure is fully designed.
“In the absence of a demonstrable breach of law, his claim is not only premature, it is fundamentally untenable,” Bhagwandin added.
