GEORGETOWN, GUYANA – May 16, 2025 – In an unprecedented legal challenge, Attorney-at-law Christopher Ram today filed Guyana’s first judicial review action under the Access to Information Act 2011, directly confronting Commissioner Charles R. Ramson Sr.’s systematic refusal to enforce the nation’s transparency laws. The High Court case represents the first attempt to compel compliance with legislation that has remained effectively dormant since its passage fourteen years ago, despite constitutional mandates for government transparency.
Ram’s action alleges that Commissioner Ramson has fundamentally failed in his statutory duty, creating what amounts to a constitutional crisis in government accountability. The case seeks to compel disclosure of a publicly funded investigation into Guyana’s controversial 2016 Petroleum Agreement – information that the government has withheld for over three years.
The court documents filed today detail a pattern of institutional obstruction spanning three years. In 2021, formal requests were deliberately ignored by the Commissioner. Follow-up attempts in 2023 met with bureaucratic stonewalling. More recently, public demonstrations were held outside the Commissioner’s residence as softer remedies were exhausted. In 2025, in a most recent correspondence, Ramson wrote of “delusional concern,” threatening to “strenuously defend” against legal action.
Ram’s action seeks three key declarations by the court: that the Commissioner has failed to comply with mandatory requirements of the Access to Information Act, that he is legally responsible for providing information under the Act, and that the Clyde & Co. report constitutes an official document subject to disclosure. The case also seeks a mandamus order compelling the Commissioner to provide the complete report within 14 days, along with costs against the Commissioner of Information.
Ramson has served as Guyana’s only Commissioner of Information since the Act’s inception, making this the first judicial test of his interpretation and enforcement of transparency laws. His aggressive resistance to disclosure requests contrasts sharply with the Act’s democratic mandate.
“This case will determine whether Guyana’s transparency laws have meaning or remain empty promises,” Ram declared. “When the sole enforcer of information rights actively obstructs access, judicial intervention becomes essential to preserve democratic accountability.”
The case challenges fundamental violations of Article 146 of Guyana’s Constitution, with Parliament having declared in 2011 that the Act would ensure compliance with constitutional transparency requirements. Legal experts predict that the outcome will establish precedents affecting the enforcement of freedom of access to information across the Caribbean, particularly where commissioners have failed to implement transparency mandates.
Ram appears with co-counsel Khemraj Ramjattan. The case number is 2025/36-HC-FDA-CAD-DEM-CIV, which was filed in the High Court’s Constitutional Division and is currently awaiting a hearing date.
CONTACT: Christopher Ram & Associates
157 D Waterloo Street,
Georgetown
Email: christopherramandassociates@gmail.com
