The report by the Media Institute of the Caribbean (MIC) on Guyana’s Access to Information Act of 2011 underlines again the shortcomings of this piece of legislation which was meant to be a critical adjunct to transparency in government but which has barely functioned.
In its May 1st report, the MIC said that the Act needs fundamental reform to comply with the tenets of the extant model legislation.
It was noted that the Guyana Act gives broad powers to the President to exempt public bodies without any objective principles being applied.
“There is no such provision in the Model Law. On the contrary, Article 2 (4) provides that `no public body shall be exempt including the legislative and judicial branch, supervisory institutions, intelligence services, armed forces, police & other security bodies, Chiefs of State & government & the divisions thereof.’”
The MIC report said that the ending of blanket immunity will force agencies to justify claims of the need to withhold disclosure, and is in keeping with recommendations for a public interest test.
Among other defects, the MIC report noted that there are no provisions for Information Officers in the Guyana law as the Commissioner handles all requests. It said that Information Officers should be appointed by each public body to manage the applications for information.
Addressing time limits, the MIC report said that Articles 22-23 in the model law provide for 20 days for a response and a 20-day extension. Section 18 of the Guyana Act provides for 60 days for a response and another 60 days for an extension.
“These time limits are far removed from internally accepted standards and should be reduced”, the report said.
The MIC report also found that there is a broad public interest override in Section 38 of the Guyana Act and a public interest test is featured in several categories of exemption. Further, Section 25 gives the Commissioner wide discretion to refuse requests because of resource constraints that may be imposed on public authorities.
The MIC report pointed out that the local Act establishes one Commissioner in Section 5 but that the model law establishes multiple Commissioners in a commission. Further, the Commissioner is appointed by the President but the model law requires a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament.
Access to Information legislation or freedom of information as it is better known is one of the guard rails of progressive democracies. When functioning optimally it showcases the intent of the government to conduct its business in an open and transparent manner and provides an interface with the citizenry for all types of information to be requested and provided.
PPP/C governments have paid fulsome lip service to the legislation but with very little intention to have it function. The clearest sign was its decision to appoint a former Attorney General in PPP/ C administrations, retired Justice of Appeal Charles Ramson as the sole commissioner. It was an unsuitable decision at the start and remains so today.
Moreover, there has been no evidence of reports being produced by the Commissioner of Information on its activities, if any, and no evidence of productive responses to questions from members of the public. That the public might have mostly ignored it is a function perhaps of their unawareness of the legislation or lack of confidence that answers might be forthcoming.
The last known futile attempt to gain some assistance from the Office of the Commissioner of Information was in relation to the request by Jonathan Yearwood for details of the award of a billboard contract by the Ministry of Housing to Impressions Inc.
In December of 2022, Mr Yearwood said he was disappointed at the quality of service being provided by the Commissioner of Information as he was still to be supplied with details of the Housing Ministry contract.
It had been over five months since Mr Yearwood began the process to gather information on the contract details.
“I am extremely disappointed at the quality of service I have received. The Commissioner made promises but failed to fulfill,” he lamented.
According to Mr Yearwood, he had lost all faith in the office of the Commissioner of Information and its ability to function.
“It is all yap yap and nothing. This has caused me to lose all faith in the commission. The commissioner promised to put pressure on the ministry but nothing has been done. It is a lot of talk and no action,” Mr Yearwood complained then.
Mr Yearwood’s efforts had come after several news items by Stabroek News on its failure to elicit information from the Ministry of Housing on this matter.
To date, there has been no information in the public domain about the basis on which Impressions Inc has taken up large state contracts for billboards and other services.
These billboard contracts are a prime example of how state revenues are assigned to persons who have connections with the government without the best practices of the Procurement Act being followed. Though it is unlikely to be ashamed by its behaviour as it is increasingly acting as if it is accountable to no one – not even Parliament – perhaps the government might deign to volunteer information to the public on how billions of dollars in contracts have been farmed out to Impressions Inc.
If the Office of the Commissioner of Information was functioning properly, members of the public could solicit answers to any number of suitable questions such as whether the government contributed financing and services to the recent Burna Boy concert, the entertainment bill for State House and the total outlay for the still unfinished Bamia Primary School.
One can easily segue now into the unsettled scandal of a pump station contract being provided to a social media player who had no relevant construction experience. The question can also be asked about how the evaluation committee of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) allowed this travesty to pass in the first place, why it was not picked up by the NPTAB and why Cabinet itself exercised no oversight.
That would be the entire chain in the government procurement system having failed to competently discharge its functions but more than that to turn a blind eye to the corrupt assigning of a contract.
The litany of woes did not end there. The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) with the majority of its members having been identified by the government, tarried unendingly in its examination of this case and found inane excuses not to act against this contract or to even recommend termination. There really should be an examination of the efficacy of expenditure on this Commission considering that hefty sums are being paid to the commissioners for full-time work.
The unproductive state of the Access to Information Act exposes again the shambolic arguments by the government that it is transparent and open to questions about that transparency.
