President Ali Appeals to Fuel Importers, Transport Operators to Reduce Profits as Cost-of-Living Pressures Mount
By Marvin Cato | HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — President Irfaan Ali on Tuesday appealed publicly to fuel importers and public transport providers to reduce their profit margins in response to rising costs that have followed from the ongoing United States–Israel war with Iran, even as the opposition argued that the appeal amounted to an admission of a cost-of-living crisis the Government had previously denied.
In a video posted on his official Facebook page, the President said the Government of Guyana has already taken substantial measures to offset inflationary pressures on the national market, but argued that addressing the current international pressures and the rising cost of refined fuel products will require the Government and all stakeholders to “work hand in hand.”
The Government’s Position
The President noted that Guyana removed the excise tax on imported refined products to zero in earlier years, meaning that the Government has been absorbing what would otherwise have been a cost paid by hire car operators, speedboat operators, minibus operators, private car owners, and other consumers of refined fuel products.
“That would have meant that over the years all those who consume refined products — whether it’s the hire car, the speedboat operators, the mini buses, the private cars, whoever consumed these products — the government would have taken up that cost, which amounts to over about 100 billion Guyana dollars annually,” the President said.
His appeal to importers and operators is, in effect, an argument that with the Government having already foregone substantial fuel-tax revenue, private actors in the fuel and transport supply chain should now contribute to managing cost-of-living pressures by accepting reduced profit margins rather than passing the international price shock fully on to consumers.
The International Context
The President’s reference to the United States–Iran conflict is to a war that began on February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel struck targets in Iran. The conflict triggered a surge in global crude oil prices after Iran restricted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil export route from the Middle East. According to international price data, fuel prices have risen sharply in many countries since the war began, with diesel rising faster than gasoline in most markets. Guyana, while a significant crude oil producer in its own right, remains dependent on imported refined fuel products and is exposed to international price movements.
Opposition: Government Has “Dropped the Ball”
In a separate interview with HGP Nightly News, A Partnership for National Unity Member of Parliament Vincenroy Jordan said the President’s appeal effectively confirmed what the opposition has been saying about Guyana’s cost-of-living trajectory.
“The President has clearly admitted that there is indeed a high cost-of-living crisis in Guyana — one which they have been denying for some time,” Jordan said.
Jordan argued that the opposition has long warned that the economic model the PPP/C Government has pursued does not adequately protect ordinary Guyanese from price pressures.
“We the opposition have long said that trickle-down economics just don’t work here in Guyana,” Jordan said.
He criticised what he described as the lack of effective price-control mechanisms in Guyana and said the Consumer Affairs Bureau is only partially functioning. He argued that large corporations continue to benefit from tax breaks and reductions while ordinary citizens are left to absorb price increases.
“This PPP/C-led administration has clearly dropped the ball on the possible control of the cost of living in Guyana,” Jordan said.
Jordan argued that the Government’s admission of a crisis is not accompanied by adequate policy measures to address it, and that the administration has, in his view, failed to manage the cost of living over an extended period.
The Underlying Argument
Between the President’s appeal and the opposition’s response sits a substantive policy disagreement that the cost-of-living debate has not fully aired. The President’s framing implies that the international price shock is the proximate cause of recent cost pressures, that the Government has already done what it can do (forgoing the excise tax), and that further relief depends on private actors accepting reduced margins.
The opposition’s framing implies that even before the international shock, Guyana’s regulatory and consumer-protection framework was inadequate to manage prices, and that the current crisis exposes longstanding policy gaps rather than being purely the consequence of external events.
Both positions can be partially correct simultaneously: an international price shock is real and is driving costs upward in Guyana as elsewhere, and the country’s domestic price-control and consumer-protection mechanisms have limitations that constrain the Government’s options in responding.
The Consumer Affairs Bureau, the Competition and Consumer Affairs Commission, and other regulatory bodies have not, at the time of publication, issued statements on the specific question of whether transport fare and fuel-product pricing is within the regulatory framework they are equipped to enforce.
