In a newly released 2026 report, the Organization of American States’ Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, operating under the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, has documented a systemic deterioration of press freedom and open discourse in Guyana throughout 2025, painting a picture of an increasingly adverse environment for journalistic work.
At the core of the rapporteurship’s criticism is hostile rhetoric targeting independent media from top Guyanese public officials, specifically naming President Irfaan Ali and the government’s Department of Public Information. The report emphasizes that as formal guarantors of human rights, public authorities hold a unique duty to avoid speech that endangers journalists or interferes with their work. This obligation stems from the high profile of public office, the broad reach of official statements, and their outsized ability to shape public perception of media workers. Any official statement that undermines the right to free expression, or creates direct or indirect pressure on reporters contributing to public deliberation, violates this core duty, the report finds.
Beyond verbal hostility, the rapporteurship recorded multiple documented instances of active obstruction of press coverage. One high-profile case dates to September 17, 2025, when several independent media outlets were excluded from President Ali’s first post-inauguration press conference, held after his September 6 swearing-in. Six outlets received no advance notification of the event, while other favored outlets were personally invited by the press secretary and director of press and publicity. Local press outlets framed the exclusion as part of a broader pattern of controlling the official government narrative, silencing public scrutiny, and eroding the public’s right to transparent governance. In response, Guyana’s Director of Public Information dismissed critical coverage of the exclusion as “malicious, misleading, and blatantly inaccurate.”
Addressing the incident, the rapporteurship referenced binding precedent from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds that any restriction on journalist access to official public events must meet strict standards: it must be legal, pursue a legitimate public goal, and be necessary and proportional to that goal in a democratic society. Any accreditation requirements for media must be specific, objective, reasonable, and applied transparently, the court has ruled.
The report also tackles the long-running issue of multi-million-dollar government debts owed to multiple major Guyanese media outlets, including the shuttered Stabroek News, as well as the Guyana Chronicle, Guyana Times, and Kaieteur News, a debt the government has publicly acknowledged. Citing Principle 13 of the IACHR’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, the rapporteurship notes that using state resources, including public funds, official advertising allocations, broadcast frequency grants, and other state powers to pressure, punish, reward, or privilege media based on their editorial coverage constitutes a direct attack on press freedom and must be legally prohibited.
Turning to political discourse, the report documents allegations of obstruction targeting opposition figure Azruddin Mohamed, leader of the We Invest in Nationhood movement, by the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the Guyanese government. Obstruction included efforts to block Mohamed from holding public rallies with supporters and a months-long delay to his swearing-in as Opposition Leader. President Ali has denied any role in blocking Mohamed’s election to the opposition post. Mohamed currently faces extradition to the United States on allegations of financial crimes. The delay was only resolved after mounting pressure from the Western diplomatic community, when National Assembly Speaker Manzoor Nadir convened a session of opposition parliamentarians to hold the vote.
The report stresses that free expression, in both its individual and collective forms, is a non-negotiable foundation of democratic electoral processes. As the Inter-American Court has previously established, open discourse acts as an essential tool for shaping voter opinion, strengthening competition between political factions, allowing voters to evaluate candidate platforms, and enabling transparency and oversight of elected officials. It also nurtures the formation of the collective will expressed through popular vote. Beyond elections, free expression plays a critical democratic role: it prevents the rise of authoritarianism and facilitates personal and collective self-determination. As such, the report confirms, the state carries a binding obligation to create the conditions for open, pluralistic public debate on issues that matter to citizens. Aligning with the OAS Hemispheric Agenda for the Defense of Freedom of Expression, the report notes that an engaged citizenry requires institutions that encourage rather than suppress discussion of public issues. Any use of coercive or subtle mechanisms to impose a single official narrative or discourage open debate is fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance.
The rapporteurship also documented widespread failures in Guyana’s access to information regime. It received dozens of complaints from journalists and civil society groups about unresponsiveness to information requests from public entities and elected officials. The most prominent example of these failures was a March 28, 2025, protest held outside the Office of the Information Commissioner, attended by journalists and civil society organizers. Protesters accused the Information Commissioner of failing to uphold his statutory duties under Guyana’s 2011 Access to Information Act, including deliberately obstructing legitimate requests for government records. Protesters also highlighted that the Commissioner is legally required to submit an annual public report to Parliament, but has not done so for more than a decade. The protest called for sweeping legislative reform to decentralize the access to information process, arguing that individual ministries should take responsibility for processing requests rather than concentrating power in a single commissioner role. The protests continued for weeks, with participation from leading civil society groups including the Guyana Press Association, General Workers’ Union, Guyana Human Rights Association, and Guyana Transparency Institute.
Additional failures of transparency highlighted in the report include the ruling PPP’s refusal to disclose full details of its 2025 election campaign financing, the government’s ongoing refusal to release the full official report into a 2025 Guyana Defence Force helicopter crash that killed five servicemen, and an incomplete public audit of Guyana’s oil sector costs.
The OAS report’s findings are echoed by new data from global press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which announced late last month that Guyana has dropped three places in its annual 2026 World Press Freedom Index. RSF now ranks Guyana 76th out of 180 assessed countries, down from 73rd place in 2025.
