Dear Editor,
The Parliamentary Opposition is clear- we understand and support the imperative of open data. An Open Data Act should not only mandate the release of public data but also establish a robust framework for accountability, innovation, and citizen engagement.
In its current iteration, the government’s passage of the Open Data Act is not only a wasted opportunity but also a glaring example of its failure to prioritize the long-term interests of Guyanese citizens. Instead of crafting a robust framework that could genuinely transform data governance, the government has once again settled for a weak and inadequate approach. Worse yet, the Attorney General’s attempt to justify this shortfall with misplaced arguments only highlights how out of depth this administration is when it comes to serious policymaking.
My contribution in the National Assembly during the debate on the Open Data Bill emphasized the need for a legal and institutional framework that ensures clarity, safeguards privacy, and maximizes the socio-economic potential of open data. Unfortunately, the Act, as passed, does not address the critical gaps that threaten its efficacy.
In addition to not closing obvious gaps, the new Act piles on additional responsibilities on an already non-functioning Commissioner of Information. This decision to retain the role of the Commissioner of Information as the sole oversight mechanism is a missed opportunity. The Commissioner of Information as it stands, is a one-man office without enforcement power, independence, or adequate resources and is ill-equipped to manage the vast scope of responsibilities that attend the management of open data.
Accordingly, my proposal for the establishment of a Data Commission—a multi-member, independent oversight body—was designed to address these shortcomings and to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to international standards.
The proposed Data Commission would be responsible for, among other things, monitoring compliance with the Act across all public authorities, auditing data registers and open data plans to ensure adherence to international standards and the legal requirements, publishing an annual report on the state of open data in Guyana, highlighting successes, challenges, and areas for improvement, handling complaints and disputes related to access, data quality, or non-compliance by public authorities, investigating breaches of the Act, such as unauthorized data withholding or publication of restricted data and imposing penalties for failure to comply, policy development and advocacy including advising the government on open data policies and practices and promoting public awareness and education about open data and the benefits of transparency, as well as capacity building including providing training and technical support to Data Officers and public authorities to meet the requirements of legislation.
To ensure efficiency and impartiality, the proposed Data Commission would have a Chairperson, appointed by the Committee of Appointments of the National Assembly and Commissioners- representatives from key sectors, including civil society, academia, legal experts, IT professionals, and business, as well as ex-officio members from the relevant public authorities, such as the GNBS and the NDMA for their technical input.
The Commission should have its own budget, staff, and decision-making authority to operate independently of the executive branch. All activities, findings, and recommendations should be documented in an annual report made publicly available. I was clear in my presentation on exactly how the proposed Data Commission would interact with the Data Protection regime and organisations such as the NDMA.
Which is why, Editor, the Attorney General’s reliance on the Data Protection Act to counter my call for a Data Commission is both misleading and uninformed.
Editor, the Data Protection Act upon which the Attorney General sought to rely as the basis for his spirited, albeit erroneous rebuttal, sets out clearly in the long title that it is “an Act to regulate the collection, keeping, processing use and dissemination of personal information. Open data is a fundamentally different concept. The Attorney General of Guyana ought to know this.
The Data Protection Act speaks to a Data Protection Commissioner—a role fundamentally different from what a Data Commission would represent. Simply put, while the Data Protection Commissioner focuses on privacy and enforcement of data protection laws, a Data Commission would take a broader view, coordinating national data governance, managing open data policies, and supporting digital transformation efforts. Such a commission would serve as an overarching body to harmonize data governance across sectors, ensuring the interoperability of systems, setting standards for data collection and sharing, and overseeing the ethical use of data.
This broader mandate is critical for a nation pursuing digital transformation and innovation. It would drive transparency, enforce accountability, and align Guyana’s data governance framework with international best practices.
By failing to embrace this comprehensive approach, the government has once again short-changed the people of Guyana.
The Ali Administration’s short-sightedness is not just a policy failure; it is a betrayal of the Guyanese people. Instead of seizing the opportunity to build a framework for sustainable development and innovation, the government has chosen to perpetuate mediocrity. This is a government that talks big about digitization and transparency but falters at every step when it comes to delivering meaningful reforms.
The government must revisit the Open Data Act and commit to strengthening it through collaboration with stakeholders. A strong institutional framework, coupled with meaningful public engagement, is imperative to unlock the full potential of open data. It is not too late to set Guyana on the right path toward a future driven by transparency, innovation, and citizen empowerment.
Yours truly,
Hon. Amanza Walton Desir, M.P.
