EU-EOM recommendations

Nov 20, 2025 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) has done what Guyanese journalists, civil society groups, and this newspaper have been shouting for years: call out the glaring political capture of Guyana’s broadcast landscape and the systematic abuse of state media by those in office.

The EU’s final report on the 2025 elections pulls no punches. It confirms that the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) lacks independence that the state media overwhelmingly favours the ruling party, and that critical reporting is often stifled through defamation lawsuits and opaque regulatory practices. These findings are not surprising. What is surprising, though perhaps only to the EU, is the expectation that this government will seriously address any of these concerns.

Successive Kaieteur News editorials have documented the misuse of state resources to shape national narratives, suppress dissent, and elevate the ruling party’s propaganda machinery. Whether it is the lopsided coverage on the state broadcaster, the weaponisation of public offices to intimidate journalists, or the refusal to publish GNBA’s monitoring reports, the government has created a tightly controlled information ecosystem where truth becomes inconvenient and transparency a threat.

The EU report rightly recommends that the GNBA’s board appointment process be depoliticised. Currently, the board is dominated by nominees loyal to the ruling party, and its hearings are closed to the public. These are red flags in any democracy. The GNBA decides who gets broadcast licences, who is sanctioned, and which media houses are “compliant.” Yet its decisions are made behind a curtain, immune from scrutiny, and heavily guided by political interests. When the watchdog answers to the entity it is supposed to regulate, the public is left defenseless.

The EU also takes aim at the failure of the GNBA to release monitoring reports. For years, Guyanese have suspected that these reports if they exist at all would expose the obscene imbalance in state media coverage. The state-owned NCN and the Guyana Chronicle operate as extensions of the ruling party’s communications arm. During election cycles, this imbalance becomes even more glaring, with government events and personalities dominating headlines while the opposition and independent voices fight for scraps of visibility.

The EU is correct in saying the legal framework is inadequate. Criminal defamation was struck down, but civil defamation remains a favored tool used by the politically powerful to muzzle criticism. This government, along with well-connected business elites, has perfected the art of financial intimidation: if they can’t silence you legally, they will bankrupt you through litigation. This newspaper has been a victim of this type of intimidation.

The EU report also alluded to the fact that the 2011 Access to Information Act is treated like a decorative ornament, always on display, never functional. The Commissioner of Information- an obdurate, hard-nosed politician has made a mockery of the office and despite promises of reform nothing has happened. Journalists and civil society activists have routinely encountered stone walls, unanswered requests by a Commissioner of Information who has turned obstruction into a full-time vocation.

But while the EU’s recommendations are sensible, they collide with an uncomfortable truth: this government thrives on information control. Media independence is not seen as a democratic necessity but as a political threat. The ruling PPP/C has shown no inclination, none whatsoever to loosen its grip on the information sphere. In fact, it has expanded that grip. Every criticism is met with accusations of bias; every independent report is smeared; every dissenting voice is portrayed as working for “foreign agents” or “political enemies.” Even the Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo’s weekly press conferences have become platforms to attack private media and to deploy misinformation against journalists who refuse to toe the line.

The EU also highlights how state-run media “favoured the government” and how private media often reflect their owners’ political loyalties. But it is important to note that only a handful of outlets—this newspaper among them, consistently uphold nonpartisan scrutiny. This does not happen by accident; it happens through relentless hostility and pressure from those in power who fear scrutiny. Still, the EU hopes that Guyana will reform. We wish we could share that optimism. But this government has made it painfully clear: it intends to control every sector, media, regulatory bodies, institutions, public information, even civil society spaces. Any area not under its influence becomes a target. We welcome the EU’s honesty. But Guyana’s real struggle continues: securing a media landscape where truth is not a political casualty and where those who govern do not fear the light.

---

• Editorial, Election, European Union, Observation Mission, recommendations

---