Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) K. Sharma Solomon — who holds responsibility within the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) for Public Service, Government Efficiency & Implementation — has issued a warning about the Government’s push toward expanded eGovernment systems and the rollout of a National eID programme. In a strongly worded letter, Solomon argues that the administration is advancing digital reforms “without protection or accountability,” exposing citizens to serious and avoidable risk.
He criticises a recent statement attributed to the Minister of Public Service, Zulfikar Ally, promoting greater reliance on digital platforms, calling the position “both reckless and irresponsible.” Solomon argues that “No responsible government adopts technological reforms of this scale on political slogans,” stressing that the State must first demonstrate cybersecurity readiness, legislative support, and management competence before shifting critical services online.
The MP frames the current concerns within what he describes as a long record of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) mismanagement by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government. He says the PPP has never embraced “a philosophy rooted in respect for data, system security, or competent technological oversight,” citing a history of “mismanagement, weak accountability, and institutional decay.”
Failures he outlines include a “dysfunctional” (National Data Management Authority) NDMA, an aimless eGovernment project, the collapsed fibre-optic cable initiative, the One Laptop programme—called “a symbol of waste”—and Huawei-supported projects plagued by “weak governance” and “inadequate transparency.” “This was not a momentary lapse,” he writes. “It was the philosophy of the PPP’s governance.”
Solomon contrasts this with the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition’s government post-2015 efforts to restore ICT infrastructure, secure data systems, and realign the NDMA to its mandate. Yet he says the current eGovernment programme has again “fallen into a space of opacity and political control.”
He argues that the Government has not defined how the digital transformation will function or what roles will be assigned to ministries, oversight bodies, civil society, financial institutions, or even citizens themselves. “This absence of structure exposes the entire digital architecture to political manipulation,” he warns.
He also highlights what he calls a dangerous legislative vacuum. Although the Prime Minister has acknowledged that current laws are inadequate, Solomon says the Government has failed to introduce the comprehensive legislation required to regulate the eID system. Such laws, he argues, must include strict data-access controls, protections against political interference, independent oversight, secure authentication standards, data-retention rules, and penalties for breaches. Without these, he says, “citizens have no guarantees that their data will not be abused,” referencing the alleged misuse of citizens’ information during the 2025 elections.
The MP further questions the Government’s claim that the eID system will strengthen national security. Responding to comments by the Home Affairs Minister linking the system to migrant tracking after a recent bombing, Solomon asks: “If the Government itself does not have a secure, tested, and audited system, how can an unprepared eID platform protect anyone?” He states that no evidence of secure infrastructure has been provided—“None has been demonstrated. None has been independently verified. None has been publicly accounted for.”
Solomon warns that the system, as designed, risks enabling “total surveillance,” giving the Government “one-stop access to the private lives of every citizen” without transparency or oversight. He also alleges that citizens’ data may already be outsourced to foreign contractors due to NDMA’s limited capacity and questions why the statutory body is being sidelined while outsiders handle sensitive information. “A modern eGovernment system must be built on a secure national foundation,” he argues, “not outsourced in pieces to external contractors with no parliamentary scrutiny.”
He says the core problem is trust, asserting that the Government has “failed to maintain the infrastructure responsible for protecting citizens’ data,” politicised ICT initiatives, undermined transparency, and is pursuing its digital agenda “without oversight.” “The PPP speaks loudly about digital progress,” he writes, “but their own history reveals a pattern of digital decay.”
To move forward responsibly, Solomon outlines seven steps: establishing a clear national philosophy for digital transformation, strengthening the NDMA, enacting modern eGovernance and data-protection laws, defining institutional roles, guaranteeing safeguards against misuse of data, securing independent audits, and rebuilding public trust through transparency. Until then, he insists, the proposals must be “rigorously challenged… because the safety, privacy, and rights of the Guyanese people demand nothing less.”
