Dear Editor,
The government has practically come straight out and said that they intend to renege on the contract the Berbice Bridge Company signed with the previous government. They have stated that they have no intention of raising the tolls and that they have no intention of “enriching the shareholders” of the bridge company. They have intimated that the contracted 23 per cent return on investment is too high. They say that they do not want to breach the contracts, but by refusing to adhere to the toll formula, the government seems to be doing just that.
This is news every investor in and out of Guyana, who may be thinking of investing in Guyana should take note of. A number of institutional investors invested in providing for the public, a much needed service. The Berbicians were jumping for joy when the bridge opened, but now the big hullabaloo is that the tolls, which are much less than that of the ferry, are ‘too high’.
The bridge investors should ask the Essequibians if they would pay $2,200 for a car to cross an Essequibo bridge and when they overwhelming say ‘yes’, apply to move the bridge to the Essequibo. Let’s hear the government say, ‘no’!
This government, in a headlong rush to keep their campaign promises has made a mess out of this matter. They went ahead like the proverbial bull in a china shop, announcing new tolls and a startup date without even consulting the bridge company. Talk about good faith. Then, they suddenly realized they cannot do so unilaterally, so they decided to malign the bridge investors in the news media.
Government has clearly not thought this matter through carefully. If the bridge tolls are a burden on the poorer folks, school children and so on, why subsidize every Tom, Dick and Harrynarine? The subsidy that the government proposes, subsidizes everyone whether rich or poor, Guyanese or non-Guyanese. So if a rich tourist from overseas drives over the bridge, the Guyanese taxpayer gives him a complimentary $300.
If the government is concerned about poorer folks, then what does that have to do with the bridge company? All the government has to do, is select the people they wish to subsidize and give them a refund of their bridge tolls on presentation of their toll receipt. They can put an office right after the bridge to do so. Similarly, children can uplift vouchers from school or the government office and minibuses can exchange these vouchers for cash against each toll receipt, say, $100 per child. This way the poor and vulnerable are targeted for relief and not everyone; the bridge contract is unaffected. When I was young, we had bus fare vouchers, a little blue ticket that parents could buy for kids at half price, and present to the bus conductor instead of paying the adult fare.
But back to the bridge company. It appears that one friend of former president Jagdeo has invested $160 million in the bridge and the government doesn’t like this. the government should wake up; this happens all the time. Remember the GTT, Omai and Barama deals signed by the Hoyte administration? Yes, the worst deals ever. Lots of investors got rich but Guyana didn’t. The GTT monopoly still exists.
So, now all the institutional investors in the bridge are getting ‘shafted’ because one of ‘Jagdeo’s friends’ invested? But the government doesn’t realize that it is
cutting its nose off to spite its face. The Berbice Bridge Company is likely to go belly-up without the increase, and so will the NIS and all the pension funds invested. So, how does that help Guyana?
On the one hand, government wants the bridge company to bend over and become a distribution agent for their subsidy to everyone, rich or poor, at the taxpayers’ expense, for free; but on the other hand, they wish to malign the intentions of the investors and seemingly renege on the contract. Why? Because it’s politics.
How can any investor accept the government’s position when it has shown such bad faith?
Meanwhile, the bridge company, in businesslike manner, has attempted to negotiate. It has signalled that the tolls could be reduced without a government subsidy, if the concession period is extended. They have opened the dialogue.
Government would do well to get off its high horse and get a skilled negotiator to negotiate with the bridge company without breaching the contract. This should not be allowed to reach the CCJ; you know what happens then. If we fail, we may get a nationalized bridge, but we can say goodbye to public sector investment in public-private partnerships. Oh yes, and all the NIS and pension money.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
