By Marvin Cato | HGP Nightly News |
— The hallowed halls of the National Assembly became a battlefield this week as the future of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) took center stage during the 2026 Budget Debates. What began as a government presentation of a billion-dollar “road to recovery” quickly devolved into a heated exchange over allegations of political patronage, “family and friends” management, and the true cost of keeping the industry afloat.
The Government’s Vision: Profitability by 2030
Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha led the charge for the administration, unveiling a comprehensive five-year strategic plan aimed at returning the sugar giant to profitability by 2030. Armed with a $13.4 billion allocation from the 2026 Budget, the Minister detailed an aggressive modernization campaign.
- Mechanization Push: Plans to convert over 3,000 hectares of land for mechanized harvesting and the procurement of five new cane harvesters.
- Infrastructure Upgrades: Replacement of sugar boilers and the installation of new dryers at the Rose Hall and Uitvlugt estates.
- Production Growth: Minister Mustapha reported a 26% increase in sugar output in 2025 (reaching over 59,000 tonnes) as proof that the government’s “people-centered” investments are yielding results.
“The era of failure is behind us,” Mustapha declared, emphasizing that the government views sugar not just as a commodity, but as a lifeline for thousands of rural families and sugar-dependent communities.
The Opposition’s “Family and Friends” Allegations
The government’s optimistic outlook met fierce resistance from the opposition benches. MP Vinceroy Jordan (APNU) and MP Vishnu Panday (WIN)—a former GuySuCo Agriculture Director—led the critique, characterizing the billion-dollar subsidies as “placing fresh wine in old wine skins.”
Jordan presented a staggering economic breakdown, claiming that GuySuCo produces sugar at an average cost of $275 per pound while selling it for roughly $35 per pound on the world market. “This is simply not sustainable,” Jordan argued, calling the corporation a “political fund” used to secure electoral support rather than a business.
The debate took a personal turn when Panday alleged that the corporation is crippled by political patronage. He claimed that qualified managers have been sidelined in favor of “party loyalists,” leading to systemic incompetence.
“It’s not about the money; it’s about the management,” one opposition member noted during the session. “You are rewarding friends and family while the taxpayers foot the bill for failure.”
A War of Words and Records
Minister Mustapha fired back with a stinging rebuttal, coined the “Panday Syndrome,” where he attributed past production lows to the very opposition members now criticizing the current management. He pointed out that since the non-renewal of Panday’s own contract as Agriculture Director in 2024, production has actually trended upward.
As the debate concludes, the $13.4 billion allocation remains a flashpoint for political division. While the government gambles on a high-tech, profitable future, the opposition remains firm that without a “total housecleaning” of management, the industry will remain a fiscal drain on the national treasury.
