Lack of information on rape allegations against Dharamlall

Dear Editor,

On February 18, 2026, a request was hand delivered to the office of the Commissioner of Information, Justice Charles R. Ramson, SC., at 34 East Street, for access to official documents (pursuant to s 16) pertaining to the criminal investigation of rape allegations against then Minister of Local Government, Nigel Dharamlall.

On March 2, 2026, we received the following response from the Commissioner, which we reproduce in full:

“Your application for assistance dated 18th ultimo was received as indicated in your letter to Stabroek News of the 19th. Contemporaneous resort to the Media will not elevate your aforesaid correspondence beyond the legitimate expectations of an otherwise appropriate response. However, treating this Office as if it were located on a roadside vendor’s stall hawking goods for profit has not gone unnoticed, compelling protocols notwithstanding! Perhaps, had you made the requisite effort to familiarise yourself with the ramifications of the Access to Information Act 2011, you may have been better persuaded to approach the identified “Public Authority”, the sole repository of the information you seek.

The intervention of my Office is predicated upon the failure/omission of that agency to satisfy your enquiries after due deliberations. S.5 of the Act advisedly declares the Commissioner as a “clearing house”, not an apothecary or warehouse/storage bond for your immediate convenience. “Service” to the Public is too often mistaken for “servility”, (historically resisted by the free) by some uninformed. indolent taxpayers, the source of emoluments of their tenure, as asserted by your kith and kin.”

We have since responded to the Commissioner and ask your permission to publish this letter so that there is a public record. In fact, with respect to first approaching the ‘identified Public Authority,’ on 17th October, 2023, Mr. Andrew Pilgrim, S.C. from Pilgrim & Associates (Barbados), acting on behalf of Red Thread, sent a letter to Mrs. Shalimar Ali-Hack, S.C., Director of Public Prosecutions. The letter emphasised that in the exercise of the DPP’s functions and discretion, it is accountable to both the public and subject to review by the Courts, and there is case law that decisively makes this clear. As a civil society organisation whose members serve the general interest of the public, Red Thread therefore has the right to seek the accountability of public officials for the performance of their constitutional duties. The letter repeated a request for disclosure from the DPP – a request that was first made on August 22, 2023 – and specified eight questions:

1. Whether your request for further investigations in this matter involved an instruction for the victim to be questioned further, and if so, to what end?
2. If no further questioning of the victim was required, kindly elaborate on the nature of the further investigation that was required by you at that stage.
3. Why did you not proceed with the complaint?
4. Would you be amenable to reconsider your decision not to prosecute? If not, why not?
5. Prior to the investigation, whether an appropriate risk assessment was made, given the position of power of the alleged perpetrator?
6. Were adequate measures of protection taken to ensure that you did not face pressure to discontinue prosecution?
7. On learning of the recantation, did you seek a statement from the complainant explaining her reasons for recanting and whether she did so under any duress, coercion or force?
8. Did you consider any other pursuing prosecution for any other possible charges that may arise on the evidence, including sexual grooming?

Having received no response, on March 7, 2024, Red Thread issued a press release to share this request with the public, because (1) this is a public matter, not a Red Thread matter and (2) we hoped that public disclosure in the clear light of day might prompt the DPP to respond to our query without having to submit a request for official documents pursuant to s. 16 of the Access to Information Act 2011.

We were mistaken. Our February 18, 2026 letter to the Office of the Commissioner of Information was therefore issued precisely because, two and a half years later, there has to date been no response from the Office of the DPP, and because our understanding of the scope of the Commissioner’s responsibilities matches his, namely that “the intervention of my Office is predicated upon the failure/omission of that agency to satisfy your enquiries after due deliberations.”

We repeat our request to the Commissioner of Information for the following documents (electronic or hard copy):

Any and all documents which contain information relative to the criminal investigation of rape allegations against Minister Nigel Dharamlall.

Any and all documents which contain information and/or insight as to why the Director of Public Prosecutions changed her decision to prosecute Minister Nigel Dharamlall in light of the rape allegations against him.

Any and all documents which contain information relevant to the victim’s recantation of her allegations of rape against Minister Nigel Dharamlall.

Any and all documents which contain information on investigations undertaken for other possible charges arising from the rape allegations against Minister Nigel Dharamlall.

Once again, we remind the public that the Commissioner is a servant of and therefore accountable to the taxpayers of Guyana who fund this Office. Once again, we emphasise that this matter be addressed with urgency, given the seriousness with which matters of sexual and gender-based violence must be treated in Guyana, (a seriousness emphasised by the Government of Guyana), and especially given recent newspaper reports of Nigel Dharamlall’s return to official Government of Guyana duties. Action must match rhetoric.