While the Constitution protects Freedom of Expression, many citizens feel restrained from airing their views for fear of repercussions. This has intensified since the PPP/C returned to office in 2020 and has launched bitter attacks on all parts of civil society and independent voices. It has justified these attacks by claiming that the objects of its attacks did not oppose the attempt to rig the elections in 2020 and, therefore, should have no say in national matters. It has further deemed these civil society groups hostile to the government and the ruling party.
Several prominent civil society groups have been singled out, including the Guyana Press Association (GPA), the local branch of Transparency International, the Transparency Institute Guyana Inc., the Guyana Human Rights Association, and a women's group, Red Thread.
In recent years, the government has launched bitter attacks against the GPA president and journalist, Ms. Nazima Raghubir, accusing her of being in the opposition camp and opposing the government. The attacks intensified after a candidate seen to have the government's support failed to win the GPA elections.
There are no restrictions on the practice of journalism. Journalists are free to practice their craft except for the intimidation that some may experience from senior government and ruling party officials and the self-censorship that might occur.
Journalism depends significantly on a functioning legislative framework, which is severely deficient in Guyana. An Access to Information Act was passed in 2011 but does not function. The one-person Commissioner of Information is a former two-time government Attorney General, and his son is a current government minister. Numerous requests by civil society and media members for information have gone unrequited. On March 28, civil society and media practitioners began to protest against the Commissioner and his non-functioning office.
Whistleblower legislation is also pivotal to the profession and transparency in society. Although whistleblower legislation is on the books, it has not been activated despite numerous media and civil society appeals.
A Cybercrime Act was introduced in 2018 and has been used to bring charges against online voices. Concerns exist that it can be further employed in the upcoming election period to silence voices. While the current government criticized it while it was in opposition, it remains in force and has not been amended.
A criminal libel law remains part of the legislative framework, although state actors have not recently employed it. Repeated calls have been made for its abolition.
While private, independent media has four daily newspapers and multiple television and radio stations, the state has retained ownership of a newspaper and sections of the electronic media. It also has a significant presence on social media platforms. Due to oil revenues, the state is in a dominant position. It can pay far more to recruit staff who have traditionally been with the private media, posing a threat to independent voices in the media.
