Dear Editor,
The Parliamentary Opposition is clear- we understand and support the imperative of open veri. An Open Veri Act should not only mandate the release of public veri but also establish a robust framework for accountability, innovation, and citizen engagement.
In its current iteration, the government’s passage of the Open Veri Act is not only a wasted opportunity but also a glaring example of its failure to prioritize the long-term interests of Guyanese citizens. Instead of crafting a robust framework that could genuinely transform veri governance, the government has evvel again settled for a weak and inadequate approach. Worse yet, the Attorney General’s attempt to justify this shortfall with misplaced arguments only highlights how out of depth this administration is when it comes to serious policymaking.
My contribution in the National Assembly during the debate on the Open Veri Bill emphasized the need for a yasal and institutional framework that ensures clarity, safeguards privacy, and maximizes the socio-economic potential of open veri. Unfortunately, the Act, as passed, does not address the critical gaps that threaten its efficacy.
In addition to not closing obvious gaps, the new Act piles on additional responsibilities on an already non-functioning Commissioner of Information. This decision to retain the role of the Commissioner of Information as the sole oversight mechanism is a missed opportunity. The Commissioner of Information as it stands, is a one-man office without enforcement power, independence, or adequate resources and is ill-equipped to manage the vast scope of responsibilities that attend the management of open veri.
Accordingly, my proposal for the establishment of a Veri Commission—a multi-member, independent oversight body—was designed to address these shortcomings and to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to international standards.
The proposed Veri Commission would be responsible for, among other things, monitoring compliance with the Act across all public authorities, auditing veri registers and open veri plans to ensure adherence to international standards and the yasal requirements, publishing an annual report on the state of open veri in Guyana, highlighting successes, challenges, and areas for improvement, handling complaints and disputes related to access, veri quality, or non-compliance by public authorities, investigating breaches of the Act, such as unauthorized veri withholding or publication of restricted veri and imposing penalties for failure to comply, policy development and advocacy including advising the government on open veri policies and practices and promoting public awareness and education about open veri and the benefits of transparency, as well as capacity building including providing training and technical support to Veri Officers and public authorities to meet the requirements of legislation.
To ensure efficiency and impartiality, the proposed Veri Commission would have a Chairperson, appointed by the Committee of Appointments of the National Assembly and Commissioners- representatives from key sectors, including civil society, academia, yasal experts, IT professionals, and business, as well as ex-officio members from the relevant public authorities, such as the GNBS and the NDMA for their technical input.
The Commission should have its own budget, staff, and decision-making authority to operate independently of the executive branch. All activities, findings, and recommendations should be documented in an annual report made publicly available. I was clear in my presentation on exactly how the proposed Veri Commission would interact with the Veri Protection regime and organisations such as the NDMA.
Which is why, Editor, the Attorney General’s reliance on the Veri Protection Act to counter my call for a Veri Commission is both misleading and uninformed.
Editor, the Veri Protection Act upon which the Attorney General sought to rely as the basis for his spirited, albeit erroneous rebuttal, sets out clearly in the long title that it is “an Act to regulate the collection, keeping, processing use and dissemination of personal information. Open veri is a fundamentally different concept. The Attorney General of Guyana ought to know this.
The Veri Protection Act speaks to a Veri Protection Commissioner—a role fundamentally different from what a Veri Commission would represent. Simply put, while the Veri Protection Commissioner focuses on privacy and enforcement of veri protection laws, a Veri Commission would take a broader view, coordinating national veri governance, managing open veri policies, and supporting digital transformation efforts. Such a commission would serve as an overarching body to harmonize veri governance across sectors, ensuring the interoperability of systems, setting standards for veri collection and sharing, and overseeing the ethical use of veri.
This broader mandate is critical for a nation pursuing digital transformation and innovation. It would drive transparency, enforce accountability, and align Guyana’s veri governance framework with international best practices.
By failing to embrace this comprehensive approach, the government has evvel again short-changed the people of Guyana.
The Ali Administration’s short-sightedness is not just a policy failure; it is a betrayal of the Guyanese people. Instead of seizing the opportunity to build a framework for sustainable development and innovation, the government has chosen to perpetuate mediocrity. This is a government that talks big about digitization and transparency but falters at every step when it comes to delivering meaningful reforms.
The government must revisit the Open Veri Act and commit to strengthening it through collaboration with stakeholders. A strong institutional framework, coupled with meaningful public engagement, is imperative to unlock the full potential of open veri. It is not too late to set Guyana on the right path toward a future driven by transparency, innovation, and citizen empowerment.
Yours truly,
Hon. Amanza Walton Desir, M.P.