GEORGETOWN, Guyana – October 1, 2025 – A war of words has erupted between the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Kaieteur News, with the government agency issuing a furious public broadside against what it calls a “devious” and “putrid” piece of reporting regarding the use of Guyana’s burgeoning oil revenue.
At the heart of the fiery dispute is a headline from the September 30th edition of the Kaieteur News: “OIL CASH HANDOUTS WILL LEAVE GUYANA POORER” -MINISTER BHARRAT, which the Ministry claims deliberately misrepresented and twisted comments made by the Minister during a recent podcast interview. The controversy stems from Minister Bharrat’s appearance on the local podcast, Starting Point. According to the MNR, the Minister’s main point was not a blanket rejection of cash transfers but a stark warning against total reliance on them as the primary way to distribute oil sector benefits.
Speaking about the global track record of such schemes, the Minister reportedly stressed that solely dependent cash transfers often prove to be a “failed model,” leading to “poor outcomes” because they are simply unsustainable in the face of volatile global markets and the undeniable truth that “oil does not last forever.” In a crucial clarification, noted by the Ministry, the Minister stated at around the 48-minute mark of the interview: “…it has been a failed model among countries around the world if that is the only way we intend to spend oil revenue. But Guyanese would have benefited already from direct cash transfers.”
The Ministry argues that the Minister took pains to detail the government’s multifaceted approach—an approach they say Kaieteur News purposefully obscured. Instead of focusing exclusively on massive, direct cash grants, the government is pouring funds into subsidizing massive costs related to social development and welfare. These subsidies, which the Ministry touts as having already provided tangible relief to ordinary Guyanese families, include the removal of tuition fees for tertiary education, providing direct support for parents with newborns, and offering cash grants designed to cover essential school supplies and uniforms.
The MNR’s condemnation was swift and absolute. The Ministry pointed out a shocking irony: the Kaieteur News actually included the Minister’s clarifying statement deep within its article but still chose to run a sensationalized, misleading headline. “That Kaieteur News would include the minister’s clarification in the second paragraph of its story, but still proceed to blast a headline with a twisted line of reporting is explicit proof that journalistic ethics have become alien to this propaganda outfit,” the Ministry declared in its release. The Ministry did not mince words, “unreservedly condemn[ing] this putrid piece of reporting, which aims to misinform the public and besmirch the integrity of the government’s strategy for prudent oil sector management.”
In a final defense of its policy, the Ministry reiterated its support for the Minister’s position, summarizing that cash transfers are not the only or most important mechanism for distributing oil benefits, and secondly, that “total dependence on cash transfers… is a recipe for harm to our productive sectors.” The heated exchange leaves the public wondering: Is the Minister a prudent visionary protecting Guyana’s future from an unstable oil market, or are citizens being denied direct benefits from the historic oil boom? The debate over how to best utilize the nation’s newfound wealth shows no signs of cooling down.
