Citizens demand action on Access to Information Act after government inaction.

By Mark DaCosta-In the face of governmental silence concerning critical issues surrounding the Access to Information Act, advocates throughout our nation are shifting their efforts from local protests to a wide-reaching national and international campaign.

The movement comes after persistent demonstrations and a growing sense of urgency among citizens, media personnel, and civil society groups. The objective is clear: to demand accountability from the state regarding transparency in governance and the actualisation of citizens’ rights to access public information.

For weeks, peaceful protests took place outside the Office of the President, ignited by ongoing frustrations directed at Information Commissioner Charles Ramson Sr. and his inability to execute the provisions of the Access to Information Act of 2011.

Between late March and early April this year, individuals from various sectors, including journalists, trade union representatives, and activists, united in a series of demonstrations designed to highlight deep-seated failures within the Office of the Commissioner of Information. These efforts underscored a growing public discontent with the unfulfilled promises of transparency that were meant to be enshrined in our national legislation.

As protests progressed, the organisers turned their focus on the Office of the President, recognising that it holds ultimate responsibility for the Commissioner’s actions or lack thereof. Despite multiple appeals – including letters dated April 14 and July 10, 2025, alongside a detailed briefing outlining the commission’s serious shortcomings – President Irfaan Ali has refrained from addressing these issues publicly. The silence has raised alarms about the government’s willingness to engage constructively on matters that are vital to constitutional rights and democratic principles.

The concerns raised are not trivial; they speak directly to the heart of our democracy. Since the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner in 2013, there have been no annual reports submitted to Parliament, which is a direct violation of Section 44 of the Access to Information Act. This absence of accountability is compounded by frequent reports of dismissive or vague responses to citizens seeking information.

The office, which is supposed to be a beacon of transparency, is cripplingly inaccessible; it lacks a functioning website, operational office spaces, and clear procedures for the public to follow. Despite being allocated an extensive budget exceeding $300 million, there is little evidence of any progress in ensuring compliance with transparency regulations. Furthermore, concerns about conflicts of interest hound the office, raising further questions about the integrity of its operations and the public’s trust.

The enduring silence from both the Information Commissioner and the President signifies more than just administrative shortcomings; it amounts to a concerning disregard for the rights of citizens to participate in the democratic process. This has led to the belief that such silence reflects a broader trend of governmental opacity and undermines respect for the rule of law.

As the nation stands on the brink of significant economic changes due to newfound oil revenues, the call for accessible, reliable public information becomes ever more critical. Democratic engagement is contingent upon the ability of citizens to make informed choices, necessitating robust mechanisms for accessing information.

Given the government’s reluctance to engage, activists have announced a pivot in their campaign tactics. They intend to seek legal remedies while engaging international watchdogs to amplify their cause. Initiatives will include educational campaigns to ensure citizens understand their rights under the Access to Information Act and building wider coalitions to promote democratic accountability. The goal is to document these failures and reach out to international advocacy groups to pressure the Guyanese government into compliance.

Fundamentally, this struggle is a defence of our democratic principles and the assertion of constitutional rights that must be upheld above all else. Access to information is framed not as a privilege, but as an essential right vital for democratic governance. The right to seek and receive information is enshrined in the Constitution and crucial sections of our Access to Information Act, providing a framework for the public to engage with their leaders meaningfully. A government that neglects these principles does a disservice not only to the electorate but to the essence of democracy itself.

As this grassroots movement transitions into a broader campaign, it calls upon all citizens who cherish the ideals of good governance and accountability to remain vigilant. The fight for transparency, for the right to know, and for a government that adheres to the rule of law is one that requires collective action and relentless dedication.