Dear Editor,
READERS would recall that I had questioned Melandi Janki’s modus operandi in challenging ExxonMobil’s operations in Guyana, whereby she is seeking to sue that company together with the Government of Guyana (GoG).

I had pointed out that there is some amount of evidence that suggested she worked for ExxonMobil sometime during 1999 and 2015, and that it appears her services were not retained.

In another letter, I challenged some of her arguments on financial matters, her position on the feasibility of the gas-to-energy project, for example, exposing the inherent weaknesses and flaws with her contentions on these matters.

I am now writing with reference to her letter carried in the Stabroek News edition of February 3, 2023, with the caption: “I did not represent Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement.”

In her letter, she wrote that she was told that “somebody on Facebook or a chat show says I represented Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement.”

That “somebody” happens to be the undersigned, and she is very much aware of this because I emailed her both of my letters which were carried by two of the local newspapers.

I was also on the Guyanese Critic platform (a widely viewed platform in Guyana) with Freddie Kissoon and Leonard Gildarie, where the question was asked of me about her lawsuit among other things, and I gave my take on the issue, including her questionable agenda.

Though I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, there are myriad inconsistencies in her letter that I am hard pressed to leave unaddressed.

The author, who is often described as an international attorney and transparency advocate, claimed that she did not represent Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement.

The undersigned’s contention, however, is not whether she represented Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement, per se, but whether she worked for ExxonMobil and earned from ExxonMobil at some point in time, in relation to Exxon’s operations in Guyana.

Given her response, she has explicitly and implicitly confirmed that she has worked for ExxonMobil in Guyana.

To this end, she claimed in her letter that De Caires, Fitzpatrick and Karan were the lawyers for Exxon at the time, and confirmed that she was one of the firm’s consultant lawyers.

She went on further to state that Miles Fitzpatrick “put her name” on the document because nobody else (in his law firm) knew anything about oil. By her own admission as described above, the international attorney confirmed that though in a third-party capacity, she was contracted by a law firm in Guyana that was hired by Exxon at the time.

According to her, she was hired on the basis that no one else in the law firm had experience in the global oil-and-gas industry. In the very letter, the transparency advocate goes on to implicate herself further by disclosing her experience working with big oil companies such as BP during those days as a lawyer.

She also disclosed that Exxon had a power of attorney with her in 1999 which authorized her to receive full notices and accept service of process, among other things.

Obviously, these services provided by her to Exxon directly and indirectly through the referenced law firm, were not for free.

In these respects, the attorney and transparency advocate confirmed categorically that she worked for Exxon; this means that she earned from Exxon in the past, and now she is leading a campaign against Exxon’s operations in Guyana.

The obvious question in these circumstances is, why didn’t she drive these campaigns during those years? Why now? If, as she claimed, she is championing a good cause for the planet with utmost sincerity, then why a lawsuit with EEPGL, a subsidiary company of ExxonMobil in Guyana together with the Guyana Government?

This should be a global campaign and she should be fighting her legal battle with the parent company in the United States (US) and in a US court of law, and NOT Guyana.

Having said that, here are some other critical questions that come to mind that the transparency advocate ought to provide the answers to the Guyanese public:
1) It appears that she is suing Exxon and the GoG on behalf of the Guyanese people’s interest by way of protecting the environment. What is she suing Exxon for exactly?
2) Is it a declaration? If so, what are those declarations?
3) Is it for monetary compensation on behalf of the Guyanese people? If so, how much?
4) And if she wins this case, what will she do with the money she is suing for, if that is the case?
5) Will the money be deposited into a special fund?
6) Will it be transferred to the Consolidated Fund?
7) Will it be used in community development projects?

Yours respectfully,
Joel Bhagwandin