Among the disclosures which ‘top miner’ Azeem ‘Junior’ Baksh made to journalist Travis Chase on 27 March 2025, and aired on 12 August 2025, (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3980217925561620) were his interactions pertaining to the Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) Closed Areas Committee. ‘Closed Areas’ refer to lands hitherto held under large-scale Prospecting Licences that are progressively released by the concession holder into the public pool, and available for re-allocation. In theory, a ‘Closed Areas Committee’ advises the Minister of Natural Resources on the apportionment of these released areas among the different scales of mining.
In practice, back in 2014-15, a Management and Systems Review of the GGMC, carried out by G. Walrond, (a former GGMC Commissioner), L. J. L. Heesterman, & J. Goolsarran, noted that the ‘wide discretionary power’ conferred on the subject Minister by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Act of 1979 and the Mining Act 1989, appeared to be (ab)used by ‘the granting of specific requests for Closed Areas … not always the subject of clear and transparent justification,’ and by not cancelling certain Mining Permits even though the low rental fees were not being paid for them (p. 30). That Management and Systems Review was handed over in 2015. Did it trigger any reforms?
Between Minutes 30 and 38 of the Travis Chase interview in March 2025, Top Miner Junior Baksh described an example of how the Closed Area Committee (CAC) functioned in practice since August 2020. According to Baksh, a prospective miner had to first secure a well-connected mediator to advance his/her case. The only requirement was that the supplicant for a mining licence had to be a supporter of the PPP:
Minute 30: ‘… any …any issue you got that you need help with, as long as you’re a supporter of the PPP, you can go to [Close friend #1 of senior government officials] and he will try his best to fix your problem’. Baksh enlisted two close friends of the senior government officials to mediate for him. The transcript makes for hair-raising reading:
Minute 30:34: Baksh had acquired control of ‘three mining property in Tamakay area. Now the way I got this …this mining land is through what you call a CAC letter … It’s not easily available.’
Baksh had to hand over GYD 2 million (USD 9,500) for each of the CAC letters to [Close friend #2 of the senior government officials]; so USD 28,500 in total. This cash did not appear to be destined for the GGMC’s coffers. Instead, ‘… when I found this land in Tamakay … three blocks, knowing [Close friend #2 of the senior government officials] connection with [senior government officials] … his close connection, I took it to him as a business. I told him, “Get these blocks and we’ll go 50/50 with it, because they’re very good blocks.” So, [Close friend #2] did get the three letters, and we did get the blocks…’
Minute 31:48: A Dr. X [named] is ‘responsible for the closed area committee. He is the one responsible for issuing these letters’.
Presumably, the USD 28,500 were shared among: the person whose name was on the original CAC letter? Dr X of the CAC? Close friend #2 of [the senior government officials?] Others at the apex of power? Baksh does not name the persons who shared the bribe money. Aside from Dr X, did the other members of the CAC take any part in the discussion that resulted in the issuing of the letter signed by the head of the CAC? Does the CAC have statutory meetings? Are Minutes of its meetings kept? Back to Baksh. There was a drawback: ‘But we didn’t get [the blocks] in our name. It …It was in another name that was on the letter’.
Minute 31:56: Baksh explained, ‘We covered the land, just that we didn’t cover it in our name. After some time passed, I work the land. We made some gold. I approached GGMC to transfer these blocks now from that person name to my name. Days pass, weeks pass, nothing is happening. When I inquire at GGMC the status of the transfer, I was told that it has been blocked by [a senior government official]’. ‘We covered’, in mining lingo, can be translated as ‘we gained legal title …’.
In their report, Walrond and colleagues reported that the GGMC legal advisor had opined that the CAC was ‘unlawful’.
Walrond and colleagues commented: ‘8. While the Law allows for the discretion of the Minister, the granting of specific requests for Closed Areas are not always the subject of clear and transparent justification’
Reader, Baksh related one example only. If we multiply these examples by hundreds, we begin to estimate the scale and size of the economic rent that is pocketed illegally, but which rightfully belongs to the public purse. The benefits that should accrue to all citizens from Guyana’s natural resources are purloined by a few, while all the costs –environmental and social harms, the breakdown in governance as a result of corruption – are socialized. Citizens should be outraged at this corrupt dispensation of publicly owned mining lands, instead of concluding: ‘Is Guyana we deh’.
‘We deh’ in a Guyana which is a week away from national elections. And similar to the miners’ ‘contributions’ to their preferred political party before the 2020 elections, as related by Baksh, again, in 2025, the top miners are making their contributions in order to keep the status quo in place.
Sincerely,
Janette Bulkan
