…commissioner deemed to have refused three information requests
…given 60 days to determine them
(Kaieteur News) – The High Court has ruled that Commissioner of Information Charles Ramson Sr. failed to comply with his statutory obligations under the Access to Information Act 2011 and has ordered him to process and determine three information requests made by Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram.
Justice Nicola Pierre, in a 38-page ruling delivered on Monday, found that the Commissioner received three valid requests from Ram in March 2025 but failed to determine them within the time prescribed by law.
Commissioner of Information, Charles Ramson
The case, filed as 2025/43-HC-FDA-CAD-DEM-CIV, arose from Ram’s requests for information concerning tax payments, revenue and expenditure relating to the ExxonMobil-led consortium under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, as well as records concerning the operation of the Office of the Commissioner of Information.
The ruling is significant as government has failed to fully operationalise the Access to Information Act forcing journalists and other civil society members to protests on the streets.
The Court declared that Ram’s requests were valid and that the Commissioner’s requirement that Ram first approach another public authority before his office would process the requests was not a requirement imposed by the Access to Information Act.
Justice Pierre found that the Commissioner had effectively imposed an additional procedural hurdle which Parliament had not established in the legislation.
The Court noted that Ram had nevertheless complied with the Commissioner’s direction and subsequently wrote to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources seeking the information, while copying the Commissioner.
Despite this, the Commissioner did not approve or deny the requests, provide the information, identify any exemption under the Act, or communicate an extension of the statutory period.
Under Section 18 of the Access to Information Act, the Commissioner is required to advise an applicant whether a request is approved or denied within 60 days. Where the period is extended, the applicant must be informed of the reasons.
The Court therefore ruled that, by operation of Section 18(3), the Commissioner was deemed to have refused access to the information sought in Ram’s two March 7 requests.
One request sought details of taxes paid for the years 2021 to 2025 in relation to the ExxonMobil-led consortium, including tax assessment certificates, the statutory authority under which the certificates were issued, compliance with Article 15.4 of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement and relevant EITI reports.
The second March 7 request concerned amounts included in the annual Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure from 2021 to 2025 relating to taxes payable by the Minister of Natural Resources on behalf of the ExxonMobil-led consortium, and the accounting treatment of those receipts.
Attorney, Christopher Ram
The Court also dealt with Ram’s March 12 request concerning the operation of the Commissioner’s office.
That request sought annual reports on the operation of the Access to Information Act, reports from the Commissioner to the Minister, statistics on information requests including requests granted, denied and appealed and details of public authorities which provided reports for preparation of the annual reports.
Justice Pierre found that the information sought corresponded directly with the statutory reporting requirements under Section 44 of the Act and constituted information contained in official documents.
The Court rejected the Commissioner’s position that the March 12 request amounted to an attempt to have his office “self-oversee”.
Instead, the Judge found that the Commissioner’s role under the Act is to act as a “clearing house for processing requests” for information.
The Court further ruled that the Commissioner of Information is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2 of the Access to Information Act.
In reaching that conclusion, Justice Pierre pointed to the fact that the office is established by statute, the Commissioner is appointed by the President, Government provides the office with personnel, and the Minister determines the Commissioner’s salary, allowances and conditions of service.
The Court also considered the statutory reporting and administrative arrangements surrounding the office.
“I find that the Commissioner of Information is a public authority within the meaning of section 2 of the Access to Information Act 2011,” the Judge ruled.
However, the Court stopped short of ordering the Commissioner to immediately release the information requested by Ram.
Justice Pierre explained that the Court would not itself determine whether Ram was entitled to each requested document. That determination must first be made by the statutory decision-maker in accordance with the Act.
The Commissioner has instead been ordered to process and determine all three requests in accordance with the Access to Information Act and the interpretation of the law contained in the judgment.
The determinations must be made and communicated to Ram within 60 days of the date of the Court’s order.
If access is granted, the information must be provided in accordance with the Act.
If access is refused, or the Commissioner determines that a requested document does not exist or cannot be located after a thorough and diligent search, the Commissioner must comply with Section 23 by providing written notice and reasons, including information on Ram’s right to seek judicial review.
The Court declined, however, to grant Ram’s specific request for a declaration that the Commissioner had failed to comply with Section 23 by not providing reasons for a substantive refusal.
Justice Pierre explained that there was no evidence of an actual substantive refusal. Instead, the refusal arose automatically under Section 18(3) because the Commissioner failed to determine the requests within the prescribed period.
The Court awarded Ram his costs of the proceedings, with the costs to be assessed.
Source: Kaieteur News
