I write with reference to Melinda Janki’s Letter to the Editor - “I did not represent Exxon in the 1999 Petroleum Agreement” (SN, February 3, 2023). The apparent intent of Ms. Janki’s letter is to push back against persistent charges related to the oil and gas industry in Guyana. Let us begin with an examination of the facts. Janki opens her account with, “…I represented Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement. I did not.” Fine, but the case against her is not about the “petroleum agreement” per se, but about her past professional connections to BP and Exxon. Editor, let us make something clear to our readers. Melinda Janki, by her own admission, was professionally associated with law firms that represented oil companies.

Referring to law firm, DeCaires Fitzpatrick and Karran, she states, “[t]hey were Esso’s lawyers at that time. I was one of the firm’s consultant lawyers. Miles Fitzpatrick, put my name because (he said) nobody else knew anything about oil.” But in the same sentence, she confirms that “nobody else knew anything about oil.” In one fell swoop, Ms. Janki moves next to confirm her service to the oil industry, but only to immediately minimize that salient fact. Of special importance is that she was given power of attorney privileges in “…1999 which authorised [her] to receive lawful notices, accept service of process …” while she was at the said law firm representing Esso. Her alibi offered, namely, that the power of attorney was the “standard formula” can only be described as inadequate.

The truth is that Ms. Janki’s power of attorney was in effect as late as 2017. This is by her own admission. Her excuse that it should have been withdrawn since 2007 is not acceptable, not least because if she allowed it to “be live”, there are issues of her attention to details, this being a critical component of legal competence. Janki then tries to be transparent about her work for BP. Here she is – “Lest it generate more speculation, I also worked in BP’s head office as a lawyer.” Too late, I am afraid. There is no transparency here because this information was revealed a long time ago by good investigative journalism. There is no such thing as retroactive transparency.

What about her more far-fetched, artful defense? Here is Janki is her own words “In those days working in the oil industry was highly regarded. The top lawyers got the best work. But in the last few years, things have changed significantly. Working for the fossil fuel sector is not highly regarded. Young people hate oil companies. They think it is a betrayal to work for them.” What might one make of this attempt at a sociology of legal careers? Not much, excepting that by her own words Ms. Janki embarked on a legal career in oil when it was “highly regarded.” Now that it is fashionable to be antidevelopment based on hydrocarbon resources, she is against oil and gas.