Another misrepresentation of press freedom in Guyana

Dear Editor,
The September 12 statement assessing the Government of Guyana’s relationship with the media by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) warrants scrutiny, as it is clearly a misrepresentation of the state of press freedom in this country. First, it is not coincidental that the RSF statement came just a few days after the Guyana Press Association (GPA) used its congratulatory message to President Irfaan Ali to chastise him for what it described as an “attack” on a ‘journalist’ – the same ‘journalist’ who, just a few weeks before the General and Regional Elections, made a false claim to his more than 270,000 followers that several members of President Ali’s Cabinet were to be sanctioned by the US government. This is the same ‘journalist’ who was at the center of a highly controversial interview – which was coincidentally ‘leaked’ days before the general elections – in which unsubstantiated allegations of widespread corruption were made against President Ali and members of his immediate family. It was also this same ‘journalist’ who, earlier this year, published an entire interview with a woman who falsely claimed she lost her twins during delivery at the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC). Editor, Guyana’s media landscape is one of the most pluralistic in the Caribbean. According to the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA), there are currently more than two dozen licensed television broadcasters, more than a dozen radio stations, several privately owned daily and weekly newspapers, and an expanding number of independent online platforms. These operate alongside state-owned outlets, creating a highly competitive media space. Anyone who spends ten minutes browsing social media or reading a single edition of the Kaieteur News or Stabroek News will observe the wide latitude enjoyed by journalists and citizens alike, including robust and often harsh criticism of President Ali’s government. For instance, Tony Vieira, who previously owned Channel 28, accused the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) of rigging the 2025 General and Regional Election, in a September 12 letter in the Stabroek News. Of course, by this, he implied that GECOM rigged the election to return Dr Ali to office. Vieira’s view is in stark contrast to what all election observer missions have concluded – that the elections were free, fair and orderly – but he (Vieira) continues to enjoy his right to free speech even when it conflicts with the truth. Further, there is no merit to RSF’s claim that the President’s power to appoint members of the Guyana National Broadcast Authority (GNBA) affects the independence of the country’s media outlets because those “allies” allegedly have the power to revoke broadcast media licences. Regulatory frameworks for broadcasting exist in every democracy. In the United Kingdom, the communications regulator Ofcom is appointed by government; in the United States, members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. These appointments, like those in Guyana, are legitimate exercises of democratic authority. What matters is not the method of appointment but whether arbitrary revocations or denials are used systematically to silence opposition voices. RSF has not, and would not be able to provide any evidence that Guyana’s media environment is shaped primarily by fear of such revocation. On the contrary, critical reporting against the government remains readily available across both traditional and digital platforms. Like the GPA statement, RSF’s statement repeatedly refers to “hostility” by government officials towards the media. However, it is important to distinguish between hostility and legitimate self defence. Article 146 of Guyana’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, while Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Guyana is a signatory, makes clear that freedom of expression carries responsibilities, including the protection of reputations. When public officials respond firmly to criticisms – like President Ali did – or even mount legal challenges against reporting they deem defamatory, this does not in itself constitute an assault on press freedom. The right to freedom of expression in democratic societies such as ours is reciprocal. Journalists enjoy the right to publish, but politicians and citizens also retain the right to defend themselves through lawful means. To demand silence from political leaders – including the President – in the face of consistent and relentless attacks from journalists and media operatives with discernible partisan agendas would undermine the very principle of free expression that RSF seeks to uphold. Surely RSF and the GPA can agree that healthy tension between the media and political power is inherent to democracy. Constructive reforms to further guarantee fairness and access are welcome, but any balanced analysis of Guyana’s press freedom must acknowledge that the current environment already provides one of the highest levels of journalistic freedom in the region, a fact borne out by the daily reality of uncensored, opposition-leaning criticism. I close by recalling that in 2020, when President Ali announced his Members of Parliament (MPs) for the 2020–2025 term, a former President of the GPA posted the list on their Facebook page with the caption: “What fresh hell awaits us.” Although the post was later removed, records of it still exist. Against this backdrop, and when one further considers that the current GPA is led by two individuals who were directly employed by the APNU government – including one who served in the then President’s Office – and that not a single state media worker sits on the present executive, concerns about impartiality are neither trivial nor unfounded. I firmly believe that this political imbalance is an indication that we can expect heightened levels of antagonism towards President Ali and his government over the next five years.

Yours faithfully,
Ravin Singh