A HOST of critics are peddling the idea that the PPP/C is ushering in a ‘culture of secrecy and information control’. Accusations of the PPP/C’s being obscure, dilatory and dissimulating are totally malicious and ‘out of order.’ One must realize that the PPP/C has never refused to acquiesce to the demand for transparency in governance, nor has there ever been any unwillingness to deal seriously with perceived corruption. When Mr. Manzoor Nadir had written to Mr. Cobus de Swardt, Managing Director of Transparency International (TI), on what he said were the “known and public biases” of members of the Guyana Chapter of TI, the minister had a valid reason. In this letter, Minister Nadir pin-pointed several persons who had and still have affiliations with opposition political parties and who have repeatedly been demonstrating attitudes of an inimical nature against the Government of Guyana. The culpable trio were Christopher Ram, Enrico Woolford and Keith Parks.

One must be reminded that Mr. Ram is the legal counsel of  Transparency International Guyana, and that he had a hand in writing the opposition PNC/R- 1G’s manifesto for the 2006 elections. As regards Mr. Enrico Woolford, his notoriety still remains unpalatable. To date, he specializes in sarcastic anti-government news broadcasts. Then there is Mr. Parks, who is affiliated with the PNCR via family relations. His son-in-law, Mr. Mike Singh, is the opposition PNCR international relations liaison. So Mr. Nadir quite felicitously was forced to redress the imbalance in ‘info-gathering-forwarding’ and the bias, twisted nature of the infamous trio. The all important question now, is what this backdrop has to do with the local scenario here in Guyana.
Let a little history do the telling.
The USA got its independence on 4 July 1776, from Great Britain. However, in the United States, the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 and went into effect the following year. The ‘Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments’ was signed by President Bill Clinton on October 2, 1996.
Canada obtained Independence on 1 July 1867 from the UK, but the Access to Information Act came into force in 1983, under the Pierre Trudeau government.
In the United Kingdom, The Freedom of Information Act 2000 on a national level (with the exception of Scottish bodies, which are covered by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002) came via Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister. Mr. Blair later expressed regret over the Act, claiming that the Act impeded the ability of officials to deliberate “with a reasonable level of confidentiality”.
Jamaica, gained its Independence on 6 August 1962 (from UK), but not until the 2002 -2004 period was the Access to Information Act fully enshrined. And in Trinidad and Tobago, Independence was gained on 31 August 1962 (from UK). However, the corresponding legislation went through in 1999. The point must have been got by now. Banking on correct mathematical computation, one sees that Guyana is not far back.
For a closure, the reading audience must analyze not only the numerical factor, but also Guyana’s political post-1966 era. Post Independence Guyana was virtually wrecked by the PNC. During that nightmarish epoch, no one dared consider the “Access to Information Bill.”