THE Government of Guyana’s objection to the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2025 raises a critical question about the accuracy and fairness of global governance assessments.

While international indices can play a useful role in benchmarking progress and identifying weaknesses, their credibility depends entirely on the integrity, transparency, and timeliness of the data they rely upon.

In this case, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance (MPAG) has justifiably taken issue with the WJP’s methodology, pointing out that Guyana’s latest ranking, 80th out of 142 countries, is derived from surveys conducted as far back as 2018 and 2022.

The government argues that such outdated data cannot possibly reflect the country’s current governance and justice landscape, particularly after extensive institutional and legislative reforms implemented over the past three years.

Indeed, the use of data that predates these reforms is not just a matter of academic concern; it has real implications for how the world perceives Guyana’s progress.

When old information continues to shape new conclusions, it distorts the reality on the ground and risks misleading both domestic and international audiences.

It is also troubling that some of the surveys used were conducted by entities whose methodologies and findings were never made public, raising further doubts about transparency and validity.

The Ministry’s concern about the anonymity of expert contributors is also valid. While anonymity can protect respondents from undue influence, it should not come at the expense of accountability.

Perceptions from a small, undisclosed group of individuals cannot credibly represent the views of an entire nation.

This does not mean that Guyana is beyond scrutiny or that international assessments should be dismissed.

On the contrary, global monitoring and evaluation are vital to promoting good governance.

However, these efforts must be grounded in accurate, timely, and verifiable information. Otherwise, they risk becoming more of a headline generator than a meaningful measure of progress.

Guyana’s recent engagement in international review mechanisms—such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)—demonstrates a willingness to be assessed and held to global standards.

What the government rightly demands is fairness: that evaluations be based on the nation’s present-day realities rather than relics of the past.

As Guyana continues its path of institutional strengthening and governance reform, it is imperative that both local and international observers rely on current and transparent data.

Anything less undermines not only Guyana’s efforts but also the credibility of the institutions tasked with upholding the very principles of justice and accountability they seek to measure.