A landmark High Court ruling has reinforced a fundamental principle of democratic government — public authorities cannot simply ignore citizens seeking information about the exercise of state power.
In a ruling delivered on September 28, 2026, Justice Nicola Pierre found that Commissioner of Information Charles Ramson Sr. is a “public authority” under Guyana’s Access to Information Act and that three requests made by accountant and attorney Christopher Ram were effectively refused after the Commissioner failed to determine them within the statutory period.
The ruling does not order the immediate release of the information sought. Instead, it requires the Commissioner to process and determine the requests in accordance with the law within 60 days.
The case places access to official information, government transparency and the statutory obligations of public officials squarely before the courts.
Three requests at the centre of the case
Ram filed the judicial review application on June 19, 2025, after submitting three requests in March 2025.
His first request, dated March 7, sought information concerning taxes paid by the Government in relation to the ExxonMobil-led consortium under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement.
The information sought included total taxes paid between 2021 and 2025, tax assessment certificates, taxes certified for each year, the legal authority under which the certificates were issued, compliance with Article 15.4 of the Petroleum Agreement and relevant EITI reports.
His second March 7 request sought details concerning revenue and expenditure associated with the ExxonMobil-led consortium, including amounts included in annual estimates between 2021 and 2025 and the accounting treatment of petroleum receipts that were not reflected in the Consolidated Fund.
The third request, dated March 12, sought records concerning the operation of the Office of the Commissioner of Information, including annual reports, compliance reports, statistics on information requests and information concerning public authorities reporting to the Minister.
Court rejects additional hurdle
A central issue was the Commissioner’s insistence that Ram first approach the public authority believed to possess the requested information. Justice Pierre rejected that approach.
The court found that the Access to Information Act does not impose such a preliminary requirement. The Commissioner had therefore attempted to impose an additional procedural step that the Act does not provide.
The ruling is significant because access to information legislation is designed to provide citizens with a statutory route to information rather than requiring applicants to conduct their own investigation into which government agency might possess particular records.
The 60-day rule
The court also examined the statutory deadline governing information requests.
Under section 18, the Commissioner must advise an applicant whether access is approved or denied within 60 days. An extension is possible, but the applicant must be informed of it and the reasons for the extension.
Justice Pierre found that none of Ram’s three requests was approved or denied within the required period and that no valid extension was communicated.
The court therefore held that the statutory consequence of deemed refusal applied.
Commissioner is a public authority
The Commissioner had also argued that his office was not a public authority under section 2 of the Act. Justice Pierre rejected that argument.
The court examined the statutory structure of the office, including its creation by law, government financial and administrative support and statutory reporting arrangements. The judge concluded that the Commissioner performs statutory functions on behalf of the State.
“I find that the Commissioner of Information is a public authority within the meaning of section 2 of the Access to Information Act 2011.”
The court also rejected the suggestion that Ram’s request for records concerning the Commissioner’s office was an attempt to make the Commissioner “self-oversee.” The requested reports and records form part of the statutory reporting framework established under the Act.
No automatic disclosure — but no more delay
Importantly, the judgment does not declare that Ram is automatically entitled to every document requested.
Justice Pierre said the court would not determine in the first instance whether Ram was entitled to the documents. That responsibility remains with the Commissioner under the Access to Information Act.
The Commissioner must now process all three requests and make actual statutory determinations within 60 days.
If access is granted, the information must be provided in accordance with the Act. If access is refused, the Commissioner must provide the written notice and reasons required by law.
Ram was also awarded the costs of the proceedings.
The ruling consequently does more than resolve a dispute between two individuals. It reinforces the principle that government information is subject to legal rules, public officials are bound by statutory duties, and citizens have a judicial avenue when those duties are not performed.
At a time when questions surrounding petroleum revenues, taxation, public expenditure and government transparency carry enormous public importance, the ruling places a clear legal obligation on the Commissioner to process requests rather than leave them unanswered.
The next test will come within 60 days, when the three requests must finally receive decisions under the law.
