Commissioner of Information undermining rather than promoting transparency- Chris Ram
Mar 09, 2025
…flags lack of accountability for millions received by office
Kaieteur News- Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram has accused the Commissioner of Information, Justice Charles Ramson of undermining transparency, through the use of complex language that creates further confusion rather than clarifies issues of importance, among other issues.
Attorney-at-Law, Christopher Ram
In his recent column, ‘Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded’ the Lawyer highlighted the impact of this barrier to information in an oil economy.
To preface his arguments, Ram explained the purpose of the Access to Information Act, passed in 2011. He said, “Guyana’s Constitution identifies access to information as a right – not a privilege. Yet, for a decade and more since the Access to Information Act was passed in 2011, this right has been treated with contempt.”
The Act provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Information and the laying of annual reports in the National Assembly, no later than nine months after the end of each year.
Ram in his column told readers that the Office of the Commissioner of Information’s ongoing obstructionism reflects more than a question of competence, since he views this as a deliberate affront to transparency and accountability.
He pointed out that last Sunday, a North American Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Oil and Gas Governance Network (OGGN) pleaded for information on the taxes the Government of Guyana paid for the oil companies operating in the Stabroek Block. A citizen, Danuta Radzik then highlighted similar frustrations in attempting to access public information from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Lawyer was keen to note that while these public demands were not made using the Access to Information Act, they highlight the frustrations and obstructions in obtaining basic information on matters of public interest. According to him, “These letters underscore how the barriers to information access extend beyond the oil sector to affect various aspects of civil society oversight and citizen engagement.”
Ram does not believe OGGN or Radzik would have had better luck with the information requested using the Office of the Commissioner of Information. In fact, he detailed his own experience with requesting information from the Commissioner.
“I wrote to the Commissioner (on December 6, 2021) what should have been a straightforward request for information under the Access to Information Act 2011. In his acknowledgment, he advised that his Office would provide “an appropriate response”, subject to human and other resources. Acting on the Commissioner’s oral advice, I later directed a letter to the Ministry concerned. Not having had a response for more than a year, I sent the Commissioner a formal request to the Commissioner of Information using the Form set out in the Act, along with a letter pointing out the Minister’s non-response,” Ram chronicled.
What he received from the Commissioner of Information, in a letter dated May 10, 2023 was a “masterpiece of verbose evasion”.
The Lawyer argued that rather than providing the requested information, Justice Ramson, referring to him as Comrade, stated that an applicant “ought not to arrogate to himself the liberty of any ad hominem criticism of his statutory benefactor.”
He believes that such an absurd evasion directly undermines the very purpose of the Access to Information Act, noting that he is yet to receive the information requested.
Deep concerns
For Ram, a troubling feature is the “phantom-like” nature of the Commissioner’s office. He explained, “Although officially under the Office of the President, that office could not provide information on the location of the Commission of Information. When even the President’s Office cannot direct citizens to a statutorily created office, one must question how seriously the Act and the broader issue of transparency are taken.”
Equally disturbing is the Commission’s financial management. According to the lawyer, “Tens of millions of dollars are allocated annually in the national budget for the Office of the Commissioner, yet no financial accounting for these funds has ever been provided.”
Auditor General, Deodat Sharma was unable to confirm whether the Office of the Commissioner of Information falls under his remit or another accounting mechanism.
In the meantime, Ram also pointed out that the Access to Information Act requires the responsible Minister to table an annual report on the operation of the Act, however parliamentary records do not disclose even a single report having been submitted to Parliament since the Act’s inception.
This newspaper could not locate any Annual Reports on Parliament’s website. At least three Members of Parliament (MPs) also had no recollection of such reports being laid. Meanwhile, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs explained on Saturday that he had no access to the records on the weekends.
Additionally, the Commissioner of Information expressed reluctance to provide any comment to Kaieteur News via a cellphone call yesterday (Saturday). He agreed to set up a meeting on Monday to provide any clarifications this publication required.
Implications
With the hindrance to transparency cited by Ram, the Lawyer said the implications for oil and gas governance are profound. “When citizens and civil society organizations like OGGN cannot access basic information about tax payments, production figures, or environmental compliance, confidence in the management of the national patrimony and accountability is severely eroded – especially in the absence of an independent Petroleum Commission,” he said.
Ram believes that the Office of the Commissioner of Information has become an embarrassment to both the Government and the country.
He urged, “A law meant to guarantee transparency has been perverted into a mechanism of secrecy. This farce must end. Parliament must immediately demand an accounting of the Commissioner’s budget and require compliance with the Act’s reporting obligations.”
Further, the attorney suggested that “surgical measures” be taken should the Commissioner’s Office continue obstructing access to information, since “government cannot claim to champion transparency while allowing this mockery to continue.”
(Commissioner of Information undermining rather than promoting transparency- Chris Ram)
Related
Similar Articles
