Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 October 2026, 23:01 by Written By Denis Chabrol
Two civil society activists, who say they have been rebuffed by Access to Information Commissioner, Charles Ramson Snr after they one years ago requested key documents about the oil and gas sector, are asking the High Court to order him to process their request.
Danuta Radzik said in court papers filed on Tuesday that Mr Ramson responded on October 24, 2025 to their request dated October 22, 2025, in a manner that was not an approval or denial.
If Ms Radzik wins her case, she has also applied to the High Court for Mr Ramson to personally pay her costs on a full indemnity basis, including the costs of two Attorneys-at-Law, within 14 days of their assessment, with interest from that date until payment; and that no part of those costs be paid, met or reimbursed from public funds.
Citing a recent High Court decision, Ms Radzik said they drew Mr Ramson’s attention to the ruling in Ram v Ramson and asked him to determine the Request within 14 days, failing which judicial review would be sought. However, on October 14, 2026 he acknowledged receipt of that letter on October 9
October 2026. The activists also said he made no determination of the request. He described the ruling in Ram
v Ramson as “a decision of a puisne Judge”, asserted that a “prescribed timeframe” for review by the courts had not elapsed, and suggested that the applicant “await any final judicial directions” on the Act.
Ms Radzik is asking the High Court to declare that Mr Ramson’s failure to approve or deny the request within 60 days of receipt, or at all, is a failure to comply with section 18 of the Access To Information Act and a decision reviewable under section 43(3) and his refusal in the October 14, 2026 letter by which he declined to “determine the request pending “final judicial directions”, is unlawful, irrational and of no effect.
The woman is also seeking a court order compelling Mr Ramson to process and determine the request in keeping with the law and to communicate his determination to the applicant within 14 days of the order.
If access to any requested document is granted, Ms Radzik says Mr Ramson must immediately give or if it is refused, deferred, does not exist or cannot be found “after a thorough and diligent search”, he must give her written notice.
The court documents say the request identified each document with specificity, including permit numbers, project names, named companies and the years concerned.
Ms Radzik also wants the environmental permit for the 300 megawatt gas to energy to power plant. ; Request for Proposals (RFPs) for the design, finance and operation of the gas to energy project; the environmental permit for the natural gas liquids gas to energy plant; updated environmental and social baseline study; terms of reference missing from environmental permit; feasibility study for Associated Gas required by Article 12 of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement; environmental permits for Schlumberger Guyana Inc., Tiger Rentals Guyana Inc; Sustainable Environmental Solutions Inc. Guyana, and Professional Waste Solutions Inc. (PWSI); EPA certification of all marine vessels transporting hazardous wastes from offshore platforms (Liza |, Liza 2, Payara, Yellowtail) to onshore hazardous waste management facilities, 2020 to 2025; certification of all road vehicles transporting chemicals and hazardous materials to onshore facilities and bonds, under the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Board Guidelines for Pesticide and Toxic Chemicals Transport Permits, 2020 to 2025
