Introduction
Guyana’s Constitution identifies access to information as a right – not a privilege. Yet, for a decade and more since the Access to Information Act was passed in 2011, this right has been treated with contempt. The Office of the Commissioner of Information’s ongoing obstructionism reflects more than a question of competence – it is a deliberate affront to transparency and accountability.
Last Sunday, the North American NGO, Oil and Gas Governance Network (OGGN) pleaded for information on the taxes the Government of Guyana paid for the oil companies operating in the Stabroek Block. In yesterday’s Stabroek News, civil society activist Danuta Radzik eloquently highlighted similar frustrations in attempting to access public information from the Environmental Protection Agency. These letters underscore how the barriers to information access extend beyond the oil sector to affect various aspects of civil society oversight and citizen engagement.
While these public demands were not made using the Access to Information Act, they highlight the frustrations and obstructions in obtaining basic information on matters of public interest. Not that OGGN or Danuta would have had better luck if they had. The Act had many weaknesses from its inception, but these pale compared to how it has been operationalised by its sole Commissioner, Charles Ramson, S.C.O.R, former Justice of the Court of Appeal and Attorney General under an earlier PPP/C Administration.
Dysfunction
Former Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman retained the British law firm to investigate the circumstances surrounding the signing of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement. I had managed to obtain the report, but critical appendices were missing. So, on 6th December 2021, I wrote to the Commissioner what should have been a straightforward request for information under the Access to Information Act 2011. In his acknowledgment, he advised that his Office would provide “an appropriate response”, subject to human and other resources.
Acting on the Commissioner’s oral advice, I later directed a letter to the Ministry concerned. Not having had a response for more than a year, I sent the Commissioner a formal request to the Commissioner of Information using the Form set out in the Act, along with a letter pointing out the Minister’s non-response. The Commissioner’s letter dated May 10, 2023, was a masterpiece of verbose evasion. Rather than providing the requested information, Justice Ramson, referring to me as Comrade, stated that an applicant “ought not to arrogate to himself the liberty of any ad hominem criticism of his statutory benefactor.”
Bizarre
This extraordinary and bizarre statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of public bodies – not as benefactors bestowing favours but as public servants charged with statutory duties. The letter further suggested that I should have found the information in “the Bar Review contemporaneous with its delivery” or in the Commissioner’s own published work, his “3rd Book, Metrics of Bar and Further access thereto.” Such an absurd evasion directly undermines the very purpose of the Access to Information Act. To date, I have still not received the information, suggesting that the Commissioner’s assurance that “appropriate action will be taken to accommodate your non-timeous request” was not serious.
Perhaps most troubling is the phantom-like nature of the Commissioner’s office itself. Although officially under the Office of the President, that office could not provide information on the location of the Commission of Information. When even the President’s Office cannot direct citizens to a statutorily created office, one must question how seriously the Act and the broader issue of transparency are taken. But that is not all.
The Commission’s financial aspects are equally concerning. Tens of millions of dollars are allocated annually in the national budget for the Office of the Commissioner, yet no financial accounting for these funds has ever been provided. The Access to Information Act requires the responsible Minister to table an annual report on the operation of the Act. The parliamentary records do not disclose even a single report having been submitted to Parliament since the Act’s inception.
Implications
The implications for oil and gas governance are profound. When citizens and civil society organizations like OGGN cannot access basic information about tax payments, production figures, or environmental compliance, confidence in the management of the national patrimony and accountability is severely eroded – especially in the absence of an independent Petroleum Commission.
What makes this situation particularly troubling is that the Access to Information Act was introduced with great fanfare and is still marketed as a pillar of governmental transparency. Yet in practice, it has become a barrier rather than a conduit for information flow. The Commissioner actively undermines transparency, using unnecessarily complex language that obfuscates rather than elucidates.
These issues – obfuscatory language, failure to provide requested information, inability to locate the physical office, and non-compliance with statutory reporting requirements – are unacceptable in a democratic society. Indeed, it is fair to say that the Office of the Commissioner of Information has become an embarrassment to both the Government and the country. Measured by value for money, the Office of the Commissioner of Information is zero out of one thousand!
Conclusion
The Act’s poor performance and operations vindicate the criticisms made by the national transparency body TIGI and others when it was first introduced. On the few occasions that it does meet, the National Assembly can find the time to pass some gravely inconsequential amendment Acts. Meanwhile, a law meant to guarantee transparency has been perverted into a mechanism of secrecy. This farce must end.
Parliament must immediately demand an accounting of the Commissioner’s budget and require compliance with the Act’s reporting obligations. If the Commissioner’s Office continues obstructing access to information, drastic, surgical measures must be taken. The government cannot claim to champion transparency while allowing this mockery to continue.
