Opposition parliamentarians on Monday fiercely challenged the government’s $40 million allocation to the Office of the Commissioner of Information, arguing that the funding is unjustified for an agency that has largely failed to function in service to the public, even as social spending has been increased under the 2026 National Budget.
During Committee of Supply debates in the National Assembly, Ganesh Mahipaul, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament, highlighted persistent concerns that the Commissioner’s office has received significant funding over several years without producing annual reports or meaningfully responding to public requests for information.
“Would the Honourable Minister and her side support a reduction in the allocation … to $1?” Mahipaul asked, emphasising that more than $90 million has been spent on an office that has not demonstrated basic statutory performance. He argued there is no value for money in continuing to fund an institution that has failed to deliver on its mandate.
Dr. Terrence Campbell, APNU’s lead MP, also took aim at the lack of accountability surrounding the allocation, questioning how the $40 million — much of it earmarked for the Commissioner’s own salary and benefits — can be justified when the office has produced no meaningful output.
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira defended the allocation when challenged by lawmakers, saying the funding is justified because the Commissioner — a former judge — is fully aware of his statutory obligations under the Access to Information Act and “is expected to produce a report.” She told the Assembly that most of the $40 million will go toward the Commissioner’s salary and related benefits. The Commissioner is retired Justice Charles Ramson Snr.
When pressed on why funding should continue despite the office’s failure to produce annual reports for more than a decade, Teixeira said she would not support cutting the allocation, citing past instances where budget reductions to agencies had negative consequences.
Teixeira also referenced provisions of the Access to Information Act, noting that once information is publicly available online there is no further obligation on the Commissioner, a point that drew sharp criticism from opposition members and transparency advocates.
Her remarks came amid vocal opposition complaints that the Commissioner’s office has been largely unresponsive to requests for information from both the public and civil society — raising questions about whether the sizeable allocation represents value for money and responsible governance.
“What value is $40 million to an office that cannot show evidence of work being done?” Mahipaul said. “This is not accountability; this is squandering public resources.”
Opposition members vowed to continue pushing for greater transparency and demonstrable impact from every dollar allocated — insisting that public confidence in governance requires more than token funding for institutions that fail to serve the people they were created to protect.
The Office of the Commissioner of Information was established under the Access to Information Act of 2011 to promote transparency and accountability by ensuring citizens can access official documents held by public authorities. In law, the Commissioner is empowered to require public bodies to comply with access requests and to publish information about how the Act is operating.
However, the office has not been functioning effectively; despite statutory requirements, it has failed to produce annual reports, and there is widespread frustration that it has been largely unresponsive to information requests from the public and civil society, undermining the very purpose of the legislation.
