Access to Information Act is being sabotaged — Sherwood Lowe — Opinion

Access to Information Act is being sabotaged

October 19, 2026·2 min read

Dear Editor,

In February 2023, APNU wrote the Commissioner of Information, requesting the television programme logs of NCN to expose its blatant government bias in its coverage of the 2023 budget debate. Commissioner Ramson responded, indicating the need for APNU to satisfy two conditions, both of which possessed no legal basis: 1) that APNU must prove that NCN did, in fact, have the requested documents, and 2) that APNU must show that it had directly requested the documents from NCN but had been refused.

Though at the time APNU pointed out to the commissioner that the Access to Information Act places no such responsibility on requesters, the matter died on the spot.

In September this year, in a separate case brought by Christopher Ram against the Commissioner of Information, Justice Nicola Pierre found that the commissioner had effectively imposed an additional procedural hurdle which Parliament had not established in the legislation.^[1] In addition, she found that the Commissioner’s role under the Act is to act as a “clearing house for processing requests” for information, and rejected his argument that the Access to Information Act required applicants to first apply to the public authority believed to hold the information and obtain a refusal. In truth, one does not need a law degree to agree with the Judge.

But, for the record, the role of the Commissioner of Information as the first stop for requests for information was clearly expounded in the National Assembly during the second reading of the bill on 15th September 2011 by its main government promoter, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira.^[2] She emphasized the role of the commissioner as a conduit for all requests when she said:

“Looking at Guyana, at our own vulnerabilities and our own distances, and difficulties of persons being able to do their business, we felt that it was most appropriate and practical to be able to have a Commissioner of Information that would be the conduit through which all requests… So if someone was in Jawalla or Caradora and wanted to know something, that person might not know which exact Ministry to write, or agency to write. Were that person to make a request to the wrong agency, that person would have to then start all over again and could even go through, maybe, ten different agencies before that person comes to the right one. By having the Commissioner of Information as a conduit through which all requests are made, it is the Commissioner of Information and his staff, as is stated in the legislation, where he or she will be given budgetary support and personnel, would then know exactly which agencies are doing what and they will communicate with them and they would then reply to the persons applying.”

As in the legislation, nowhere in the parliamentary debate were preconditions for applicants mentioned.

In the long-standing public frustration over Commissioner Ramson’s wrong-headedness and high-handedness in fulfilling his role, I have not heard from the minister with responsibility for governance and the government’s point person on the act. During the debate in the assembly, Ms Teixeira spoke expansively about making improvements to the act as the country gained experience with its implementation. So, what has she done to address the Charles Ramson factor? She must know that Mr Ramson is sabotaging the act. She must know that enhancing governance in Guyana involves much more than holding annual conferences and filling out UN questionnaires. Let us hear from her on this matter soon.

Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe

References

Ram Wins Key High Court Ruling on Govt Accountability, Access to Information – Village Voice News — villagevoicenews.com ↩
Guyana Assembly Passes Access to Information Bill — www.freedominfo.org ↩

Ram Wins Key High Court Ruling on Govt Accountability, Access to Information – Village Voice News

villagevoicenews.com · 2026-09-29

In a ruling delivered on September 28, 2026, Justice Nicola Pierre found that Commissioner of Information Charles Ramson Sr. is a “ public authority” under Guyana’s Access to Information Act and that three requests made by accountant and attorney Christopher Ram were effectively refused after the Commissioner failed to determine them within the statutory period. The ruling does not order the immediate release of the information sought. Instead, it requires the Commissioner to process and determine the requests in accordance with the law within 60 days. The case places access to official information, government transparency and the statutory obligations of public officials squarely before the courts. ... Ram filed the judicial review application on June 19, 2025, after submitting three requests in March 2025. His first request, dated March 7, sought information concerning taxes paid by the Government in relation to the ExxonMobil-led consortium under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement. The information sought included total taxes paid between 2021 and 2025, tax assessment certificates, taxes certified for each year, the legal authority under which the certificates were issued, compliance with Article 15.4 of the Petroleum Agreement and relevant EITI reports. His second March 7 request sought details concerning revenue and expenditure associated with the ExxonMobil-led consortium, including amounts included in annual estimates between 2021 and 2025 and the accounting treatment of petroleum receipts that were not reflected in the Consolidated Fund. The third request, dated March 12, sought records concerning the operation of the Office of the Commissioner of Information, including annual reports, compliance reports, statistics on information requests and information concerning public authorities reporting to the Minister. Court rejects additional hurdle A central issue was the Commissioner’s insistence that Ram first approach the public authority believed to possess the requested information. Justice Pierre rejected that approach. The court found that the Access to Information Act does not impose such a preliminary requirement. The Commissioner had therefore attempted to impose an additional procedural step that the Act does not provide. The ruling is significant because access to information legislation is designed to provide citizens with a statutory route to information rather than requiring applicants to conduct their own investigation into which government agency might possess particular records. The 60-day rule The court also examined the statutory deadline governing information requests. Under section 18, the Commissioner must advise an applicant whether access is approved or denied within 60 days. An extension is possible, but the applicant must be informed of it and the reasons for the extension. Justice Pierre found that none of Ram’s three requests was approved or denied within the required period and that no valid extension was communicated. The court therefore held that the statutory consequence of deemed refusal applied. ... Commissioner is a public authority The Commissioner had also argued that his office was not a public authority under section 2 of the Act. Justice Pierre rejected that argument. The court examined the statutory structure of the office, including its creation by law, government financial and administrative support and statutory reporting arrangements. The judge concluded that the Commissioner performs statutory functions on behalf of the State. > “I find that the Commissioner of Information is a public authority within the meaning of section 2 of the Access to Information Act 2011.” The court also rejected the suggestion that Ram’s request for records concerning the Commissioner’s office was an attempt to make the Commissioner “self-oversee.” The requested reports and records form part of the statutory reporting framework established under the Act. ... No automatic disclosure — but no more delay Importantly, the judgment does not declare that Ram is automatically entitled to every document requested. Justice Pierre said the court would not determine in the first instance whether Ram was entitled to the documents. That responsibility remains with the Commissioner under the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner must now process all three requests and make actual statutory determinations within 60 days. If access is granted, the information must be provided in accordance with the Act. If access is refused, the Commissioner must provide the written notice and reasons required by law. Ram was also awarded the costs of the proceedings.

Source

Access to Information Act is being sabotaged in Kiskadee Watch, October 19, 2026

Guyana Assembly Passes Access to Information Bill

www.freedominfo.org · 2011-09-19

# Guyana Assembly Passes Access to Information Bill The Guyana National Assembly Sept. 15 passed an access to information bill drafted in meetings boycotted by the opposition and being criticized by transparency activists. President Bharrat Jagdeo is expected to sign the bill in the coming months, according to an Associated Press report. Prime Minister Samuel Hinds told the Assembly that 20 of the 50 clauses were amended by a select committee, according to a report by Kwesi Isles in Demerara Waves. There were no major changes in principle, purpose or intent; the amendments made mainly were of the sort to clarify what was intended and to remove ambiguities and maybe some typos and layout issues, Hinds was quoted as saying. ... Opposition participation in the committee was limited to the AFCs Raphael Trotman, according to the Demerara Waves report which stated: The opposition parties have objected to meetings being held during the parliamentary recess which runs from August to October and have also boycotted the sittings. Government had said the meetings were necessary to get outstanding business cleared before the dissolution of parliament later this month. ... The bill provides for access to information subject to a regimes of exemptions and the appointment of a commissioner of information, according to a description in a Government Information News Agency (GINA) release, which also says the bill seeks to set out a practical regime of right to information for persons to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the government and public authorities and for the appointment of the Commissioner of Information. Any public official found guilty of destroying public documents could face as much as a year in jail. ... PPP/C Member of Parliament, Gail Teixeira, who also spoke on the Bill, said that it adds another layer of the governance architecture for Guyana in terms of human rights and democratic institutions and is for the benefit of all citizens. This Bill is taken from a number of pieces of similar legislation from places such as Canada, United States of America, India, Jamaica, Belize and Trinidad and Tobago it is an attempt to take what is best from the various pieces of legislation and incorporate what is applicable to Guyana, she said. She made reference to a similar Bill which was dated 2006 but wasnt published until November 2010 and was tabled by Raphael Trotman from the Alliance for Change (AFC), and said that it is a duplicate of Trinidad and Tobagos Freedom of Information Act. We believe that this Bill is a good-faith effort, we have no doubt that over time as we develop and emerge as a country and our capacities improve, this Bill will be amended but for now it is a good effort for Guyana, Teixeira said. ... At the select committee, the Bill benefitted from deliberations between the government and opposition, until August 10 after which the opposition was represented by only one member, AFCs Trotman. The select committee met on 12 occasions and saw nine written submissions, three of which were followed up with oral presentations. The Bill has 50 clauses, 30 were unaltered and 20 of which were altered at the select committee. These amendments, the prime minister said, were mainly to clarify what was intended, to remove ambiguities and to correct typographical and layout issues. ... But Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira explained that the decision to have only a COI was aimed at reducing the response time particularly in cases where requests are forwarded to the wrong government agency from people in far-flung coastal and hinterland areas. One of the criticisms of all the FO ... that do not have a Commissioner of Information is that people spend undue time trying to find which is the right agency to make the request to, she said in her argument in favour of a central clearing house with catalogues.