In 2023 Policy Issues, we drew attention to the unacceptable state of affairs in relation to the Access to Information Act. Courts have continuously ruled that not only is such access required for transparency and accountability, but they regularly regard this as a part of the Constitutional right to receive ideas and information without interference.
That right to freedom of information is enshrined in the Guyana Constitution, as it is across the Caribbean and, indeed the rest of the world. As far back as 1946, in its very first session, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I), stating, “Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.” Without access to information, freedom is bereft of effectiveness. It is argued that it is necessary for the fulfilment of all other rights and as an underpinning of democracy.
Unless there are good reasons for the State to withhold information, every citizen one should be able to access information maintained by the State as their agent. More importantly, freedom of information is a key component of transparent and accountable government. It plays a key role in enabling citizens to see what is going on within government, and in exposing corruption and mismanagement. To its credit, the Jagdeo Administration in 2011 passed an Access to Information Act with justifiable fanfare. That Act requires the Commissioner of Information, who is appointed by the President, to be a clearing house for processing requests and discharging the functions assigned to him under the Act. It also requires the Minister responsible to lay over a report in the National Assembly annually.
Parliament has been appropriating funds annually under this Act during the life of which there has been a single holder of the position of Commissioner of Information. Yet, not once has there been a report laid before the National Assembly and there are several known cases where requests for information have not been met or assistance given to the applicants for information, in violation of the law.
This sad state of affairs ought to be immediately brought to an end so as to lend truth to the Minister’s statement that “key agencies in our anti-corruption architecture, are all active and functioning in keeping with our statutes”.
