EU report did not accuse Govt of exploiting citizens’ personal data, and no evidence of any breach has surfaced

Dear Editor,
The recent hullabaloo over the alleged misuse of cash-grant recipients’ personal information has strayed far from the evidence. The European Union’s final election report has repeatedly been cited as proof that data was weaponised for political purposes. Yet the report never made such a claim. What it highlighted was a structural problem: Guyana’s incomplete data protection framework and the vulnerabilities this creates. That is an institutional observation, not a finding of wrongdoing.
Apparently, even checking in with citizens about programmes like the cash grant, school feeding, or farm subsidies is now scandalous. Heaven forbid that a political party’s election staff make calls to gauge the effectiveness or satisfaction with Government social programmes. Nevertheless, this is exactly the kind of routine activity being misrepresented as misconduct.
The President addressed the claims directly, and his explanation deserves attention. Citizens voluntarily share their phone numbers across multiple non-Government channels, and the presence of those numbers outside a single registry does not suggest a breach. Political parties routinely collect contact information through community engagement, canvassing, volunteer networks, event attendance, and public outreach. None of this requires – or implies – unauthorised access to Government-held databases. In his words, no evidence of misuse exists, which is why he rejected the allegations outright.
This distinction is critical. Much of the public concern assumes that any unsolicited political message must come from a compromised Government system. In reality, information circulates in Guyana through ordinary processes. Phone numbers move between people, organisations, and lists regularly. Their appearance elsewhere does not, by itself, indicate political interference.
This is precisely why the President’s intervention matters. He acknowledged the gaps in data protection while drawing a clear line between structural vulnerabilities and allegations of misconduct. Recognising a problem without conflating it with wrongdoing is a nuance that should not be overlooked.
The serious work ahead lies in modernising Guyana’s data protection laws. Clear rules on collection, storage, sharing, and auditing are overdue. Strengthened legislation will make it possible to distinguish genuine breaches from routine administrative circulation or voluntary sharing of contact information. Updating the system must not be used as an excuse to assign blame where none exists.
In short, the EU report did not accuse the Government of exploiting citizens’ personal data, and no evidence of any breach has surfaced. The President’s explanation reflects the practical reality of how information flows in this country. Inflating these facts into a scandal undermines trust in the very institutions working to promote transparency.
What Guyana needs is a sober, evidence-driven conversation about data protection. Speculation cannot replace fact. Only by separating rumour from reality can laws genuinely protect citizens while preserving confidence in governance.

Kind regards,
Erin Northe