Freedom of Information is a myth

Apr 01, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- I once thought Freedom of Information meant you could, well, access information freely. Silly me. It turns out Freedom of Information is a lot like dieting—everyone claims it works, but when you try it, you end up starving.

Recently, a group of well-meaning, energetic protestors assembled outside the Office of the Commissioner of Information, demanding greater transparency. Admirable effort, except they may as well have been protesting the rain for being wet. The problem is not the Commissioner of Information. The problem is that we exist in a system where information is guarded like the last known recipe for Coca-Cola.

There was a time, long ago, when a humble government worker could walk into an office, demand to see their own personnel file, and actually be handed the folder. Nowadays, such a request is met with a blank stare, a bureaucratic smirk, and an invitation to submit an official request, which will be forwarded to a committee that meets once every four years, assuming a quorum is met, and assuming, of course, that the request is not deemed a threat to national security.

So, if an employee can’t access their own file without hiring a lawyer, imagine trying to get information about, say, government spending, oil contracts, or why a bridge that was supposed to cost $10 million suddenly costs $200 million. You can submit a request, but that’s just the beginning of a process designed to ensure you forget why you wanted the information in the first place. When Guyana passed a Freedom of Information Act, some people foolishly celebrated. They thought they were getting a shiny new key to the gates of knowledge. What they actually got was a decorative, oversized key to a door that doesn’t exist. The government, ever so generously, granted the people the right to request information while also equipping itself with an arsenal of reasons not to provide it. And the most popular excuse? National security.

The mere mention of national security sends shivers down spines and slams filing cabinets shut faster than you can say “redacted.” Want to know how public funds are spent? Sorry, that’s a matter of national security. Want to see an oil contract? That might compromise the economic integrity of the State—also known as national security. Want to know why it took six months and 25 million dollars to fix a single pothole? Classified.

But let’s say you somehow manage to request the right information, phrased in exactly the right way, addressed to precisely the right department (because if you send it to the wrong one, it disappears into a black hole). You still have to contend with administrative delays. The Act doesn’t promise a timeframe for responses, which means your grandchildren might receive an official letter saying your request is “under consideration.” And even if—by some miracle—they do respond, the information provided is usually so redacted that it looks like a classified CIA document

The real kicker is that there is no serious way to hold the government accountable for refusing to release information. The law is often so vaguely worded that it immunizes the executive from any meaningful consequences. If you don’t get the information you asked for, what can you do? Sue? Good luck with that. By the time your case reaches court, the information will be so outdated that it will be of historical interest rather than practical use.

Here’s the truth no one wants to admit: Freedom of Information laws don’t create transparency; they create the illusion of transparency. They allow governments to pat themselves on the back for their “commitment to openness” while simultaneously perfecting the art of withholding information. What Guyana needs is not an imitation of Western legal frameworks. What Guyana needs is a fundamental cultural shift—one where public officials feel free (or, dare I say, obligated) to release public information without requiring a court order, divine intervention, or an interpretive dance explaining why transparency is important.

If the government were truly committed to openness, we wouldn’t need a Freedom of Information Act. The irony is that the very existence of such an Act suggests that information isn’t free at all; it’s something you have to beg for, and even then, you might not get it. Instead of wasting time on a law that serves as little more than decorative wallpaper, we should be fostering a culture where transparency is the norm, not the exception.

Until then, if you really want to know what’s going on in the corridors of power, your best bet remains the old-fashioned way: listen carefully at the rum shop, pay attention to the security guards who overhear everything, and always, always, check who just bought a brand-new mansion on a public servant’s salary.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)   

---

---