Guyana rapped by Hemispheric Human Rights Commission’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

Last Updated on Friday, 8 May 2026, 19:42 by Denis Chabrol

The Organisation of American States’ (OAS)  Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (SFOE) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) says during last year there was an “adverse environment” for the exercise of press freedom, characterised mainly by hostile rhetoric from public authorities

Among those named for doing so are President Irfaan Ali and government’s Department of Public Information. Against that backdrop, the SFOE reiterated that  as guarantors of human rights, recommended that public officials must refrain from acting in ways that promote, encourage, favor, or exacerbate the risk or vulnerability inherent in the journalism profession. The Special Rapporteur says this means that their statements cannot disregard rights or constitute forms of direct or indirect interference or harmful pressure on the rights of those who seek to contribute to public deliberation through the expression and dissemination of information. “This duty of enhanced diligence regarding freedom of expression on the part of public authorities is due to their high office, the broad scope of their statements, and the potential effects that their expressions may have on certain sectors of the population,” the SFOE states.

The report says the rapporteurship recorded events that can constitute obstruction of news coverage. The document cites, as an example, that on September 17, 2025, information was recorded indicating that several media outlets had been excluded from the first press conference held by President Ali after his inauguration on
September 6. The SFOE recalls that  was because around six media outlets had not received information about the event, while, according to reports, other media outlets had received direct calls from the press secretary and director of press and publicity. In this regard, the rapporteurship recalls that the press reportedly pointed out that these events could exemplify a tendency to control the official narrative and suppress public scrutiny, as well as erode citizens’ right to transparency.  For his part, Guyana’s Director of Public Information reportedly described an article denouncing the exclusion as “malicious, misleading, and blatantly inaccurate”

The Rapporteurship recalls that transparency and accountability of public authorities strengthen democratic systems, and that guaranteeing the right of access to information is often a necessary condition for ensuring the exercise of other rights.

In ruling on restrictions imposed on journalists or communicators’ access to official sources of information at public events, the SFOE says the Inter-American Court has already determined that “[w]ith respect to accreditations or authorizations for the media to participate in official events, which imply a possible restriction on the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, it must be demonstrated that their application is legal, pursues a legitimate objective, and is necessary and proportional in relation to the objective sought in a democratic society. Accreditation requirements must be specific, objective, and reasonable, and their application must be transparent”

On the issue of multi-million dollar debts owed to the now closed Stabroek News and government’s own acknowledgement that it also owes the Guyana Chronicle, Guyana Times, and Kaieteur News, the SFOE also recalls that, according to Principle 13 of the IACHR’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression that “the use of state power and public funds; the granting of tariff privileges; the arbitrary and discriminatory allocation of official advertising and official credits; the granting of radio and television frequencies, among others, with the aim of pressuring and punishing or rewarding and privileging social communicators and the media based on their news coverage, are an attack on freedom of expression and should be expressly prohibited by law.”

On the issue of “Freedom of expression, rule of law, and democratic institutionality”, the SFOE recorded reported alleged efforts by the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the government at various times obstructing We Invest in Nationhood and its leader, Azruddin Mohamed from meeting with supporters, delay in having him sworn in as Opposition Leader. The SFOE reports that President Ali denied playing any role in preventing Mr Mohamed- who is facing extradition to the United States for alleged financial crimes- from being elected as Opposition Leader.

The Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir convened a meeting of opposition parliamentarians to elect the Opposition Leader, after mounting calls by the Western diplomatic community.

In this regard, the SFOE says it recalls that the exercise of freedom of expression in its two dimensions-individual and collective- is especially important during political campaigns and electoral processes. The rapporteurship says it is a fundamental element during the process of electing the authorities who will govern a State, because, as the Inter-American Court has explained as an essential tool for shaping the public opinion of voters, it strengthens political competition between the different participants, provides instruments for analysing each of their proposals, and so allows for greater transparency and oversight of future authorities and their management. Secondly, that Court also states that it nourishes the formation of the collective will expressed in the vote. “In this regard, it has also been emphasised that freedom of expression plays an essential democratic role, not only in preventing the rise of authoritarian regimes, but also in facilitating personal and collective self-determination. Consequently, the State has an obligation to ensure the necessary conditions for open and pluralistic public debate on issues of concern to citizens.

As highlighted in the “Hemispheric Agenda for the Defense of Freedom of Expression,” the SFOE says an active citizenry requires institutions that promote, rather than inhibit, deliberation on issues of public relevance. “The use of coercive means, or even more subtle mechanisms, by the State to impose a single vision or discourage free deliberation is incompatible with democratic principles.

The  Rapporteurship also monitored access to information in the country, recording complaints about the lack of response to requests from public entities and elected officials. For example, on March 28, 2025, the report records that there was a protest was held at the Office of the Information Commissioner, in which members of the press and civil society reportedly participated. According to reports, the SFOE says the protest accused the
Information Commissioner of failing to comply with his obligations under the 2011 Access to Information Act,
as well as allegedly obstructing legitimate requests for government documents.

The SFOE says it was also pointed out that the Commissioner is required to submit an annual report to
Parliament, but that no such report has been submitted in over a decade. The Rapporteurship also took note that it was emphasised that the protest sought legislative reform to decentralize the process of access to information, arguing that ministries should be responsible for processing requests, rather than a single commissioner1865 . The protests continued in the following weeks and were attended by representatives of civil society organizations such as the Guyana Press Association, the General Workers’ Union, the Guyana Human Rights Association, and the Guyana Transparency Institute, among others.

The SFOE notes the refusal of the ruling party to disclose details of its 2025 election campaign financing, the government also declining to release the report of the Guyana Defence Force helicopter crash in which five servicemen were killed, and an incomplete cost oil audit.

Late last month, the global press freedom watchdog, Reporters Without Borders/ Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) on Thursday indicated that Guyana slipped over last year’s ranking on its press freedom index. This year, Guyana is ranked 76 out of a total of 180 countries assessed compared to 73 last year.