Govt. snubs IACHR hearing on Guyana’s FOI crisis

Nov 20, 2025 News

---

— Civil Society lays bare 12 years of stonewalling

By Allyiah Allicock

(Kaieteur News) – Representatives of the PPP/C Government were a no-show at Wednesday’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) hearing on Guyana’s dysfunctional Freedom of Information (FOI) system, leaving civil society to detail more than a decade of official silence, blocked requests, and a Commissioner of Information who refuses to perform his legal duties.

The hearing, held in Miami and livestreamed by the IACHR, included Commissioners Edgar Stuardo Ralón, Roberta Clarke, Carlos Bernal Pulido and Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Pedro Vaca Villarreal. From Guyana, only a handful of civil society advocates appeared: Attorney-at-law and Accountant Christopher Ram, Danuta Radzik, Vanda Radzik, and columnist GHK Lall, who also presented statements on behalf of Anand Goolsarran and Alfred Bhulai. Despite being formally invited, no member of the Guyana Government attended.

In his presentation, Ram told the Commission that Guyana’s Commissioner of Information, Charles Ramson Sr., has failed entirely to carry out the duties assigned under the Access to Information Act. Presenting a few instances where he sought to seek information from the Commissioner, Ram recalled that beginning in 2021, he made multiple requests under the Access to Information Act, which he noted were specific, lawful, and fully in accordance with the Act’s requirements.

He related that some of these requests for information include a copy of a Report on the circumstances leading up to the signing of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement; particulars of taxes paid on behalf of the oil companies under the said Agreement; information on the Guyana Online Academy of Learning (GOAL), and the administration and performance of the Commission of Information.

Mr. Ram informed the Human Rights body that not once did he receive a substantive response and that he turned to the courts where the proceedings are pending. He also shared that he wrote directly to the President of Guyana, Irfaan Ali on several occasions where he informed him of the Commissioner’s unexplained inaction and asked him to intervene to uphold the law. Ram noted that the President had acknowledged with a casual remark at a public gathering, saying “I will look into it after the elections.”

Ram further stated that now that the election has come and past, there is still silence. He also informed the Commission that before appearing at the hearing, on October 21, 2025, he wrote again seeking an update to get a response, to which he noted no reply has been received.

The IACHR also learned from Ram of the several protest action he along with the Transparency Institute, the Guyana Press Association, the trade union movement, and other individuals, organised peacefully outside the Offices of the President, and Commissioner of Information, where they demanded that the law be implemented.

Not once has the group of individuals  been engaged, acknowledged, or invited to discuss the matter, Ram told the IACHR “we have each been systematically denied the exercise of a constitutional and internationally recognised right.” He continued, “International observers have noticed this too, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, electoral monitoring missions, editors, and columnists in the national press have all remarked on the hollow state of Guyana’s access-to-information system. They have noted that it undermines transparency, dilutes press freedom, and corrodes public trust.”

After more than 12 years of an “unproductive Act and an inactive Commissioner,” the Attorney informed the Human Rights body that credibility demands immediate, concrete steps in meeting all outstanding requests, ending legal obstacles, and fully operationalizing and improving the Act. “We are not asking for special treatment. We ask only that our right to information is respected,” he expressed.

In their remarks which were presented by Mr. Lall, both Mr. Goolsarran and Bhulai shared some of their own experiences with this Commission in accessing critical information. “On 9 June 2014, in my capacity as the then President of the Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI), I submitted a request to the Office of the Commissioner of Information under Section 12 of the Access to Information Act that provides for ‘the right of every Guyanese citizen or person domiciled in Guyana to obtain access to an official document,” Goolsarran informed.

He shared with the Commission of Human Rights that in January 2017, he had written an article highlighting the shortcomings in the functioning of the Office of the Commission for which he is facing a defamation lawsuit from the Commissioner. “The matter is pending in the Guyana Court of Appeal. To date, after 12 years since the appointment of the Commissioner, the Commission has not responded positively to any request for information,” he stated.

For his part, Bhulai in his statement described the situation as a “blatant dereliction of duty by this public servant paid from the public purse to implement the Act.” Sharing her experience, Ms. Danuta Radzik noted that she had requested some 10 documents from the Commissioner relating to Guyana’s oil and gas industry. Similarly, she noted that requests for many of these documents were previously made to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with no success.

“Based on the response from the Commissioner of Information, request for information is once again at a dead end and calls into question the right of citizens of Guyana to access information even though since 2011 the Access to Information Act has been in effect,” she expressed.

During her brief presentation, Ms. Radzik, told the Commissioners that “what we bring you today is not an abstract concern. It is a lived experience of a right denied persistently, deliberately, and systemically.” In hearing their concerns and experiences, Ms. Radzik then respectfully asked the Human Rights body to “Urge the State of Guyana to bring its practice into conformity with its Access to Information Act, its Constitution, and its binding international obligations.”

Secondly, she called upon the Commissioner of Information to fulfill his duties under the law, which is to receive, process, and respond to requests in a timely, lawful manner. The Social Justice & Rule of Law advocate also made recommendation for concrete measures to guarantee the independence, functionality, and accountability of the entire access-to-information mechanism.

Careful note

Following their presentations, the Commissioners informed the civil society individuals that they took careful note of their concerns, to which they also asked a few questions in relation to the information provide to them. “During this hearing, we have taken careful note of the concerns expressed by the civil society. The perspectives we have heard are so far essential to understanding how the law is operating in practice and where challenges exist,” Mr. Villarreal addressed.

In his brief remarks, he noted that at the same time, it is key to hear the State’s own assessment on the current state of the Access to Information Law, how it is functioning, what obstacles have emerged and what measures are being taken to ensure its full implementation.  “This balance of perspectives a central part of the Commission’s and our office independent and impartial methodology, which requires listening to all actors, contrasting the information received and promoting an informed and constructive dialogue. I now would like to recall the Inter American standards regarding access to information, which require the legal mechanism for requesting information is simple, accessible and effective. This also includes, for example, minimal formal requirements, low or no cost, firm deadlines for responses, the possibility for oral request in certain circumstances, an obligation for authorities to assist petitioners and the availability of appeals,” he said.

Promised reform

Leading up to the September 1 general and regional elections and after months of protest for greater access to public information and the refusal of Ramson Snr. to respond to requests from civil society and members of the media, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo had said that there will be some improvement in this area if his party is reelected to government. Since the PPP/C has been reelected there has been no movement in this regard. The PPP/C had even placed the issue in its manifesto promising changes. Jagdeo back then went on to state that his government has already been moving in this direction by publishing information from the oil and gas sector. “We have done so in the oil and gas sector by publishing all of the agreements signed. All of the environmental permits. We are publishing now the production schedules/ production and other metrics regularly”, he claimed. He added too that his government has also published large-scale contracts for mining and the forestry sector. “We are now online with all of the contracts that were issued above fifteen million by NPTAB (National Tender and Administration Board)” he continued before adding that more needs to be done when it comes to the Commissioner of Information. “We clearly have to provide through that office we have to strengthen the law and provide more information I can say that now”, Jagdeo said.

Kaieteur News back then pointed out to Jagdeo Ramson’s reluctance to do his job with civil society activists raising concerns that he might be squatting in the office. Responding to this the Vice President said, “As I said before the President will examine this but the job based on that commitment we made, the job does not belong to an individual so we will have to examine that.”

Led by Ram, Guyanese, civil society and even journalists have been protesting against the reluctance of Ramson Snr. to release key information on several matters, including documents that can provide some clarity to the signing of the lopsided 2016 oil deal with ExxonMobil Guyana for the lucrative Stabroek oil block.  At one of the protests, Ram had noted the information is not critical for transparency only but could help shape polices for Guyana that can benefit the citizens. The protesters had started their demonstration outside of Ramson’s office but later moved to the Office of the President. The protestors argued that the president has the power to not only release the information they are seeking but also take action against Ramson since he is collecting a salary for doing nothing. To date, the government is yet to release the information or take any action.

Leading transparency organisations in the Caribbean have offered strong support for Guyana’s civil society’s Access to Information campaign, with the Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Institute (TTTI) and Jamaica’s National Integrity Action (NIA) commending “the sustained, principled, and peaceful actions undertaken by journalists, civil society actors, members of parliament, trade unions, and concerned citizens in Guyana, who have collectively brought to light systemic non-compliance by the [Guyana] Office of the Commissioner of Information.”

The transparency international chapters expressed “grave concern” about the failure of the executive to engage meaningfully with civil society on this constitutional matter. The organisations noted “with particular concern the documented absence of public reporting, operational transparency, and meaningful responsiveness by the Commissioner’s Office,” stating these deficiencies “contravene the letter and spirit of the Access to Information Act but also undermine the rule of law and citizens’ confidence in public institutions.”

---

• crisis, Freedom of Information, GHK Lall, human rights, IACHR

---