Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded -Column 154
Introduction
By its very name, the Ministry of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs should defend and advance democracy, promote and ensure transparency, and strengthen and enforce accountability. Regrettably, the Ministry, in pursuit of the party’s agenda, is increasingly a convenient vehicle for political deflection and democratic reversal, where Parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp for government (read Party) plans and governance is engineered to serve narrow interests rather than the public good.
This was evident in a recent response from the Ministry, which, rather offensively, dismissed a legitimate request by OGGN, a civil society organisation, for information about oil tax payments and access to information. It would have been to its credit if it had simply advised the OGGN of the statutory framework for accessing public information. Instead, it misrepresented the law, ignored glaring conflicts of interest, and deflected the issue of accountability.
Law is the bedrock, information is the oxygen
The Ministry knows that law – including the Constitution – is the bedrock of governance and that information is the oxygen of democracy. Without compliance and sanctions, laws become hollow instruments, existing on paper but non-existent in practice. Given its mandate, the Ministry should ensure these principles are applied in every sphere of government. It should strengthen mechanisms allowing free and open access to information – not shielding the government from scrutiny. Instead, it has chosen to defend a system in which:
The Commissioner of Information is neither independent nor effective. In the meme “family, favourites and friends”, the Commissioner’s son is a minister, his wife chairs the Teaching Service Commission, and his office is his home! A more egregious combination of conflicts is hard to imagine.
Just coincidentally, the Commission has not filed an annual report since 1996!
Parliament is merely a tool for government use, convened when an appropriation bill is needed, or legislation passed to fulfill some international obligation or domestic unavoidable need. Under this form of governance, parliament can never function as a meaningful check on executive power. And, of course, in another part of the tripod, the Speaker’s role appears to be to restrict and, as necessary, prevent meaningful debate.
Proper governance is practically absent, with constitutional safeguards twisted to accommodate political interests. The all-important Judicial Service Commission and, to a lesser extent, the Constitutional Reform Commission stand as examples of how institutions meant to strengthen democracy can be sidelined and manipulated.
The Integrity Commission, often held up by the Ministry as a bastion of accountability and guarantee against governmental corruption, has never filed an annual report of its performance. Currently chaired by the wife of a late PPP/C Minister, the Commission has been filing annual audited financial statements that are only part of the annual reporting process.
Troublingly, this Commission seems to be operating as a mere repository with no sample audits or reviews undertaken by the Commission.
A weak and ineffective Access to Information System
The Ministry must be in self-delusion to think that Guyana’s Access to Information framework has served any purpose other than its own or can somehow be compared with that of Canada. It knew about the weaknesses in the Act before its introduction when the Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc. raised concerns in 2011. Yet, no amendment has been made to ensure its proper implementation, let alone strengthen the law.
This impotence starkly contrasts with Canada, which has continuously improved its own Act, most notably through Bill C-58 in 2019, which expanded the law’s scope, strengthened the powers of the Information Commissioner and introduced mandatory proactive disclosure obligations.
While Canada refined its legislation to promote openness, Guyana’s Access to Information framework remains stagnant and ineffective. The claim that Guyana’s Act was “modeled wholesale” on Canada’s is false in many fundamental respects:
Canada’s system is decentralised, meaning requests go directly to the government agency holding the records. Guyana’s centralised model forces everything through the Commissioner of Information, frustrating the process to make it non-operational.
Canada’s Commissioner of Information has enforcement powers and can order disclosures. Guyana’s Commissioner lacks meaningful authority and serves more as a postbox than an active entity.
Canada’s Office of Commissioner of Information has an active website full of information, advice and assistance. That of the Guyana Commissioner does not even have a letterhead, much less a website, and an “office” inaccessible to the public.
False Claims, Misdirection, and a Lack of Accountability
The Ministry’s response to the Oil and Gas Governance Network (OGGN) was factually incorrect and legally flawed. It claimed that companies in Guyana are required to file their tax returns with the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority. This is false – tax filings are made at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), not the Deeds Registry. Either the Ministry does not understand essential corporate compliance, or it is deliberately misleading the public. That is deliberate prevarication. The issue is not about financial statements but about whether or not certificates of assessment were properly issued, why the payments to support the certificates were made, and how they are accounted for.
The Ministry is not even responsible for the Access to Information Act. Yet, it attempted to dismiss concerns about transparency while failing to address why the sole Commissioner of Information has been unresponsive and unproductive.
Conclusion
While the Ministry discredited itself with inappropriate language and style, citizens like Anand Goolsarran and Alfred Bhulai and organisations like TIGI and OGGN wait in vain for basic information on the petroleum sector. A Ministry that is properly informed and genuinely committed to governance would facilitate citizens. It would elevate Parliament to its proper role as an oversight body rather than reducing it to a rubber stamp for government approval. Such a Ministry would hold other ministers accountable for legal obligations, including filing annual reports as required by law. It would treat transparency as a fundamental democratic value rather than a threat to be contained.
