Democracy
World’s Population
Population
HRF classifies Guyana as democratic.
Guyana is a parliamentary democracy that has held mostly free and fair elections since 1992, but has experienced challenges tied to the legacy of authoritarian rule and interethnic political conflict. The country gained its full independence from the United Kingdom in 1966 under the rule of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and the People’s National Congress (PNC) party. In the years following Guyana’s independence, Burnham acted to maintain himself and his party in power unjustly by engaging in widespread electoral fraud as well as violent repression of dissidence. Burnham also exploited Cold War politics to leverage foreign funding to finance his grasp on power. After Burnham’s death in 1985, the PNC held onto power until 1992, when the People’s Progressive Party/Civic Alliance (PPP/C) won the general elections. However, even after Guyana initiated its transition to democracy, violent electoral conditions persisted throughout the early 2000s due to lasting political tensions between Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese communities. In Guyana, political parties have traditionally been defined by ethnic cleavages more so than by political ideology. In 2020, an electoral crisis emerged after former president David Granger and his coalition, A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC), declared victory during snap elections. However, irregularities led to a recount, which ultimately revealed that some votes had been miscounted, leading to a transition of power. On August 2, 2020, President Irfaan Ali was sworn in, and the PPP/C became the majority party in the legislature. In September 2025, Ali and the PPP/C were re-elected for a second term in office.
National elections in Guyana are largely free and fair. However, the party in power does enjoy some campaign advantages that distort the playing field. The mainstream parties and their coalitions, such as the PPP/C and the APNU+AFC, regularly compete for seats in the National Assembly. Guyana’s primary electoral body, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), effectively manages elections, but it suffers from politicization and limited oversight capacities. The GECOM lacks the ability to effectively oversee campaign finance, and due to the lack of regulation, incumbents are able to use state resources to campaign. Nonetheless, independent electoral missions are regularly invited to oversee elections, and the current governing authority has not significantly exacerbated the weaknesses of the GECOM.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people in Guyana are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. A moderately diverse array of media companies and civil society organizations (CSOs) operate freely and are able to act as government watchdogs. Occasional infringements upon the rights of dissidents have been reported, including the judicial harassment of journalists by government officials in retaliation for negative coverage and criticism. The right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed by the Guyanese Constitution and generally upheld by the government. However, incidents of disproportionate use of force and police violence do continue to occur.
Institutions are independent and serve as a check on the government. The independence of the courts serves to protect the rights of dissidents and Guyana’s electoral integrity. Institutions are also able to hold government officials accountable for wrongdoing, even as accountability mechanisms could be improved and strengthened. Necessary institutional reform has been postponed by multiple administrations, but efforts to amend the Constitution and reform the judiciary are ongoing.
National elections in Guyana are largely free and fair. However, the party in power does enjoy some campaign advantages that distort the playing field. All major parties are able to compete for representation in the legislature, along with smaller third parties. Smaller emerging parties can face structural disadvantages in an electoral system that has traditionally favored larger, well-established parties. Guyana’s electoral oversight institution effectively manages elections; however, institutional weaknesses limit its oversight capacities and its independence. The absence of robust political and campaign finance legislation allows incumbents to exploit state resources for their political campaigns. The government regularly invites independent electoral observers to provide additional oversight of national elections.
In Guyana, a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate has not been unfairly barred from competing in elections by the government. Major parties are able to participate in legislative elections for seats in the National Assembly and the presidency. In Guyana, the political system has traditionally been dominated by two major parties, the incumbent PPP/C–which draws its support mainly from Indo-Guyanese communities–and the opposition People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), which is the main component of the APNU+AFC coalition and which draws its support mainly from Afro-Guyanese communities. In 2025, six parties participated in the general elections, and a newly-created party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), emerged as a new political force, surpassing the APNU+AFC in seats within the National Assembly. According to observers from the European Union (EU EOM), the candidate registration process for the 2025 elections took place in a timely and inclusive manner.
While unfair barring of the opposition does not occur in Guyana, electoral norms and structures are complex, which can produce a negative impact on political plurality and participation. For instance, some of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) create financial and administrative hurdles that limit smaller parties’ ability to compete in elections. In Guyana, 40 of the 65 legislative seats are elected by a single national constituency, while the remaining 25 seats are split into regional constituencies. In the 2025 elections, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) party presented candidates to the national constituency, as well as to six out of the 10 regional constituencies. According to the RoPA, only parties that submit candidates within a given region can appear on a ballot, which meant that FGM was completely excluded from the ballot in four regions of the country. This penalized the FGM’s ability to compete for the 40 seats that are elected nationally, as they could not receive any votes from the electorate in the four affected regions. While the GECOM acted in accordance with the RoPA, electoral observers noted that this rule ultimately limits the choice of voters and penalizes smaller parties that do not have the resources to compete in all the regional constituencies.
The Guyanese government has not engaged in significant voting irregularities or electoral fraud. While opposition parties reported some irregularities during the 2025 general elections, the main challenges affecting the quality of elections in Guyana stem from inherent institutional weaknesses rather than fraud. For instance, improper poll station set-up and confusion about rules on phone use in voting booths harmed the secrecy of the vote in some poll stations, but these irregularities did not represent an organized attempt to influence the election results.
In Guyana, the government has enjoyed significant and unfair campaign advantages. Due to weaknesses in the electoral framework, the party in power has the ability to leverage public resources to campaign, including state-owned media, voter databases, cash incentives, public events, and public works inaugurations. According to the EU EOM, the PPP/C used state resources in 29% of the campaign events the observers attended, which included the use of state-owned vehicles to transport voters on five separate occasions. Observers from the EU EOM and OAS also reported that the beneficiaries of government financial aid were contacted by officials and encouraged to vote for the ruling party. Similarly, the OAS mission noted the sudden promotion of approximately 2,800 police officers and reinstatement of police bonuses that took place in the weeks before the elections. Members of the opposition also reported that they had been denied advertising space for their political campaigns in state media, which exclusively boosted the PPP/C’s campaign. Government-owned social media accounts were also utilized by the ruling party to campaign. The incumbent’s ability to boost their campaign through the use of public funds grants an unfair advantage and distorts the electoral playing field. This is a persistent issue that multiple electoral missions, including the EU EOM, the OAS, and the Carter Center, have highlighted across multiple election cycles.
Independent electoral oversight has not been seriously undermined by the government. Guyana’s GECOM effectively manages and oversees elections. Independent electoral observers are also regularly invited to oversee national elections. According to independent electoral observers, GECOM successfully hosted legislative elections in September 2025. Still, there exists significant room to strengthen the capacities of the country’s electoral oversight body. For example, independent observers noted the current appointment process for GECOM creates a highly politicized institution as the appointments are divided between the president and the leader of the opposition. This partisan appointment mechanism entrenches division within the organization, which undermines perceptions of its independence and its efficiency. Moreover, the legal framework for regulating campaign financing is also largely absent and unenforceable. GECOM is often unable to enforce reporting requirements, as electoral officials lack the legal power to launch investigations to verify the accuracy of submissions. Corruption and clientelist practices are perceived to be widespread by Guyana’s electorate, undermining the public’s trust in the electoral process.
In 2022, the Ali administration passed amendments to the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) and the National Registration Act, core components of the country’s electoral law. The reforms introduce or increase penalties for certain electoral crimes. While improving accountability measures represents a positive development in strengthening Guyana’s electoral law, important aspects of the law were left unmodified, especially those related to campaign financing. Out of the 26 recommendations issued by the EU EOM after the electoral crisis of 2020, only three have been fully implemented, and two have been partially implemented. The OAS electoral observation team also noted that the majority of its 2020 recommendations had not been implemented. Without addressing important gaps in Guyana’s electoral law, the country’s electoral oversight organism remains weakened and vulnerable to influence.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public are generally free to openly criticize or challenge the government in Guyana. Media workers, activists, and civil society leaders work in a mostly favorable environment; however, occasional infringements on the rights of dissidents have been reported. Some government officials have retaliated against critical journalists or activists through legal action. Individuals have the right to peacefully protest and assemble, which is constitutionally protected and generally upheld by the government. In Guyana, there have been historical issues of police violence that intersect with longstanding interethnic tensions; some incidents of disproportionate use of force against protestors continue to be reported.
Independent, dissenting organizations have not been unfairly shut down by the government in Guyana. CSOs, labor unions, media companies, and other entities are able to organize effectively to publicly voice collective concerns over a wide range of issues—including corruption, censorship, and police violence. For instance, the Guyana Press Association (GPA) has been active within society as a promoter of a free press since 1945, denouncing attempts to intimidate media workers and encouraging the government to adopt stronger safeguards for the press. The country’s media landscape is primarily populated by a few privately owned media companies, most notably The Stabroek News, Kaieteur News, and Guyana Times. While media companies are largely free to operate in Guyana, the independent press faces a challenging financial environment and has to partially rely on state advertising contracts to maintain its operations. Media companies have reported that state advertising has occasionally been pulled or diminished in retaliation for negative coverage of the government. In October 2025, the Ali administration declared that state advertising would be redistributed to include a greater number of digital news outlets.
Guyanese government officials have not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public. The government has not engaged in systematic obstruction campaigns against critics. However, the independent press and activists can face some challenges due to retaliatory legal action undertaken by some government officials. Guyana’s civil society landscape includes a variety of community organizations and trade unions, including the Guyana Teachers’ Union and the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union. The country’s different unions are able to work together and coordinate through the Guyana Trade Union Congress. Moreover, CSOs are sometimes invited to collaborate with the government, creating opportunities to influence policymaking. For instance, in November 2024, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance hosted a Civil Society Consultation so that local CSOs could contribute to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Guyana.
At the same time, activists and journalists who investigate alleged wrongdoing by public officials have sometimes suffered from retaliation in the form of judicial harassment and verbal intimidation. Some officials have initiated civil defamation suits against individuals who publish criticism online or in print. For instance, in August 2025, a top official from the state-owned Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL), Kesh Nandlall, leveled a 20 million GYD (approximately $95,627) lawsuit against journalist Abena Rockcliffe, who is Editor-in-Chief of the independent media outlet, Guyana Standard. The outlet published an article investigating potential conflicts of interest that involved a former government contractor and GPL. Similarly, in October 2024, the head of the police’s Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Fazil Karimbaksh, filed a civil suit against the independent journalist Leroy Smith, which asks for 600 million GYD (approximately $2,867,862) in damages after Smith published articles online about alleged corruption involving Karimbaksh. Prior to the civil suit, Smith had received other threats from the SOCU for his coverage of a criminal investigation in which the former Assistant Commissioner of Police, Calvin Brutus, is implicated. The SOCU threatened to charge Smith with sedition and obstruction of justice, but Smith ultimately did not face criminal charges.
Moreover, in 2021, the police began to pursue a criminal defamation and extortion case against the US-based Guyanese activist, independent news site owner, and vocal government critic, Rickford Burke. In June 2025, however, the High Court found the criminal defamation charges leveraged against Burke to be unconstitutional. According to the Court, criminal defamation violates Article 146 of Guyana’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. This ruling sets an important precedent in protecting dissidents against criminal charges in retaliation for their dissent. However, the threat of civil lawsuits involving very costly penalties in damages remains.
Protests or gatherings in Guyana have not been seriously and unfairly repressed by the government. Individuals are largely free to peacefully assemble and protest. In December 2025, the APNU opposition bloc led protests related to the disbursement of a government cash grant. Similarly, in November 2025, WIN party members and supporters gathered outside of the Guyanese parliament in Georgetown to protest the delay in selecting a new Leader of the Opposition after the September elections. These peaceful opposition protests have occurred without obstructions from the government. Nonetheless, occasional excessive use of force by police has been reported at protests. For instance, in April 2025, the death of a young child, while unrelated to the government’s actions, sparked protests that grew into major demonstrations against the government, including criticism of the efficiency of the justice system and police investigative forces. It was reported that officers fired rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds, causing some injuries. It should also be noted that some of the protests did become violent, prompting the government to set a curfew and opposition leaders to call for calm and peace.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as a check on the government. The courts have acted to protect the rights of dissidents as well as Guyana’s electoral integrity. Moreover, government institutions have demonstrated their ability to investigate and hold officials accountable for misdeeds, even as room for improving accountability mechanisms remains. Operational opacity, delays, and institutional weaknesses can occasionally hinder institutions’ ability to act effectively.
Courts in Guyana have not frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies. While dissidents occasionally face judicial harassment via civil suits as a form of retaliation against criticism of government officials, Guyana’s judiciary has demonstrated that it can act to protect dissidents from being prosecuted for critical speech. In June 2025, the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, Roxane George-Wiltshire, issued a ruling that found criminal charges for defamatory libel to be unconstitutional. George-Wiltshire’s decision stated that Section 113 of the Criminal Law Offences Act violated Article 146 of the Constitution, which guarantees free speech. The decision was issued in relation to charges leveled against the activist Rickford Burke. In addition to dismissing the charges against Burke, the Court set an important precedent to protect critical speech from criminal prosecution. At the same time, many legal cases, including those involving attempts to retaliate against dissidents, become costly multi-year legal battles for journalists and critics due to the chronic understaffing of the judiciary, which causes significant operational delays.
Courts have not unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor. After serious electoral irregularities threatened the integrity of the 2020 elections, Guyana’s highest courts acted to protect the electoral process. In March 2020, Acting Chief Justice George-Wiltshire ruled that the GECOM had the constitutional right to undertake a partial recount of the votes after the opposition and independent electoral observers reported serious irregularities with the vote count of the electoral region four, which includes the country’s populous capital city of Georgetown. Members of the then-incumbent APNU+AFC coalition attempted to file an injunction to stop the recount. However, the judiciary has repeatedly upheld the validity of the recount, which revealed that the votes for region four had been miscounted, inflating the vote share for APNU+AFC. In December 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the Acting Chief Justice’s decision recognizing the GECOM’s authority to undertake the recount. Nonetheless, issues persist regarding judicial delays in the review of electoral petitions, which can remain unresolved long after elections have already been concluded.
Judicial, legislative, or executive institutions have not frequently and unfairly failed to hold government officials accountable. Guyana’s institutions, including the courts as well as electoral and state security mechanisms, have demonstrated their ability to launch investigations and hold officials accountable for misdeeds. Still, corruption and financial crimes are perceived to be widespread within the government; there is room for improving accountability and transparency mechanisms. In February 2025, the Police Service Commission (PSC) dismissed former Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus from the Guyana Police Force after internal hearings found Brutus to have abused his authority over junior police members in order to defraud the police and steal public funds. In addition, legal proceedings involving over 240 charges of financial crimes implicating Brutus and his family were initiated in October 2024 and are ongoing. Similarly, following the 2020 electoral crisis, the GECOM dismissed the electoral officials implicated in the attempted electoral fraud in August 2021. Former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers, former Returning Officer for Region Four, Clairmont Mingo, as well as former GECOM staffers Enrique Livan, Sheffern February, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Millerare are facing 19 charges related to electoral fraud; the trial initiated in February 2025 and is ongoing as of December 2025.
HRF classifies Guyana as democratic.
Guyana is a parliamentary democracy that has held mostly free and fair elections since 1992, but has experienced challenges tied to the legacy of authoritarian rule and interethnic political conflict. The country gained its full independence from the United Kingdom in 1966 under the rule of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and the People’s National Congress (PNC) party. In the years following Guyana’s independence, Burnham acted to maintain himself and his party in power unjustly by engaging in widespread electoral fraud as well as violent repression of dissidence. Burnham also exploited Cold War politics to leverage foreign funding to finance his grasp on power. After Burnham’s death in 1985, the PNC held onto power until 1992, when the People’s Progressive Party/Civic Alliance (PPP/C) won the general elections. However, even after Guyana initiated its transition to democracy, violent electoral conditions persisted throughout the early 2000s due to lasting political tensions between Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese communities. In Guyana, political parties have traditionally been defined by ethnic cleavages more so than by political ideology. In 2020, an electoral crisis emerged after former president David Granger and his coalition, A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC), declared victory during snap elections. However, irregularities led to a recount, which ultimately revealed that some votes had been miscounted, leading to a transition of power. On August 2, 2020, President Irfaan Ali was sworn in, and the PPP/C became the majority party in the legislature. In September 2025, Ali and the PPP/C were re-elected for a second term in office.
National elections in Guyana are largely free and fair. However, the party in power does enjoy some campaign advantages that distort the playing field. The mainstream parties and their coalitions, such as the PPP/C and the APNU+AFC, regularly compete for seats in the National Assembly. Guyana’s primary electoral body, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), effectively manages elections, but it suffers from politicization and limited oversight capacities. The GECOM lacks the ability to effectively oversee campaign finance, and due to the lack of regulation, incumbents are able to use state resources to campaign. Nonetheless, independent electoral missions are regularly invited to oversee elections, and the current governing authority has not significantly exacerbated the weaknesses of the GECOM.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people in Guyana are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. A moderately diverse array of media companies and civil society organizations (CSOs) operate freely and are able to act as government watchdogs. Occasional infringements upon the rights of dissidents have been reported, including the judicial harassment of journalists by government officials in retaliation for negative coverage and criticism. The right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed by the Guyanese Constitution and generally upheld by the government. However, incidents of disproportionate use of force and police violence do continue to occur.
Institutions are independent and serve as a check on the government. The independence of the courts serves to protect the rights of dissidents and Guyana’s electoral integrity. Institutions are also able to hold government officials accountable for wrongdoing, even as accountability mechanisms could be improved and strengthened. Necessary institutional reform has been postponed by multiple administrations, but efforts to amend the Constitution and reform the judiciary are ongoing.
National elections in Guyana are largely free and fair. However, the party in power does enjoy some campaign advantages that distort the playing field. All major parties are able to compete for representation in the legislature, along with smaller third parties. Smaller emerging parties can face structural disadvantages in an electoral system that has traditionally favored larger, well-established parties. Guyana’s electoral oversight institution effectively manages elections; however, institutional weaknesses limit its oversight capacities and its independence. The absence of robust political and campaign finance legislation allows incumbents to exploit state resources for their political campaigns. The government regularly invites independent electoral observers to provide additional oversight of national elections.
In Guyana, a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate has not been unfairly barred from competing in elections by the government. Major parties are able to participate in legislative elections for seats in the National Assembly and the presidency. In Guyana, the political system has traditionally been dominated by two major parties, the incumbent PPP/C–which draws its support mainly from Indo-Guyanese communities–and the opposition People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), which is the main component of the APNU+AFC coalition and which draws its support mainly from Afro-Guyanese communities. In 2025, six parties participated in the general elections, and a newly-created party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), emerged as a new political force, surpassing the APNU+AFC in seats within the National Assembly. According to observers from the European Union (EU EOM), the candidate registration process for the 2025 elections took place in a timely and inclusive manner.
While unfair barring of the opposition does not occur in Guyana, electoral norms and structures are complex, which can produce a negative impact on political plurality and participation. For instance, some of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) create financial and administrative hurdles that limit smaller parties’ ability to compete in elections. In Guyana, 40 of the 65 legislative seats are elected by a single national constituency, while the remaining 25 seats are split into regional constituencies. In the 2025 elections, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) party presented candidates to the national constituency, as well as to six out of the 10 regional constituencies. According to the RoPA, only parties that submit candidates within a given region can appear on a ballot, which meant that FGM was completely excluded from the ballot in four regions of the country. This penalized the FGM’s ability to compete for the 40 seats that are elected nationally, as they could not receive any votes from the electorate in the four affected regions. While the GECOM acted in accordance with the RoPA, electoral observers noted that this rule ultimately limits the choice of voters and penalizes smaller parties that do not have the resources to compete in all the regional constituencies.
The Guyanese government has not engaged in significant voting irregularities or electoral fraud. While opposition parties reported some irregularities during the 2025 general elections, the main challenges affecting the quality of elections in Guyana stem from inherent institutional weaknesses rather than fraud. For instance, improper poll station set-up and confusion about rules on phone use in voting booths harmed the secrecy of the vote in some poll stations, but these irregularities did not represent an organized attempt to influence the election results.
In Guyana, the government has enjoyed significant and unfair campaign advantages. Due to weaknesses in the electoral framework, the party in power has the ability to leverage public resources to campaign, including state-owned media, voter databases, cash incentives, public events, and public works inaugurations. According to the EU EOM, the PPP/C used state resources in 29% of the campaign events the observers attended, which included the use of state-owned vehicles to transport voters on five separate occasions. Observers from the EU EOM and OAS also reported that the beneficiaries of government financial aid were contacted by officials and encouraged to vote for the ruling party. Similarly, the OAS mission noted the sudden promotion of approximately 2,800 police officers and reinstatement of police bonuses that took place in the weeks before the elections. Members of the opposition also reported that they had been denied advertising space for their political campaigns in state media, which exclusively boosted the PPP/C’s campaign. Government-owned social media accounts were also utilized by the ruling party to campaign. The incumbent’s ability to boost their campaign through the use of public funds grants an unfair advantage and distorts the electoral playing field. This is a persistent issue that multiple electoral missions, including the EU EOM, the OAS, and the Carter Center, have highlighted across multiple election cycles.
Independent electoral oversight has not been seriously undermined by the government. Guyana’s GECOM effectively manages and oversees elections. Independent electoral observers are also regularly invited to oversee national elections. According to independent electoral observers, GECOM successfully hosted legislative elections in September 2025. Still, there exists significant room to strengthen the capacities of the country’s electoral oversight body. For example, independent observers noted the current appointment process for GECOM creates a highly politicized institution as the appointments are divided between the president and the leader of the opposition. This partisan appointment mechanism entrenches division within the organization, which undermines perceptions of its independence and its efficiency. Moreover, the legal framework for regulating campaign financing is also largely absent and unenforceable. GECOM is often unable to enforce reporting requirements, as electoral officials lack the legal power to launch investigations to verify the accuracy of submissions. Corruption and clientelist practices are perceived to be widespread by Guyana’s electorate, undermining the public’s trust in the electoral process.
In 2022, the Ali administration passed amendments to the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) and the National Registration Act, core components of the country’s electoral law. The reforms introduce or increase penalties for certain electoral crimes. While improving accountability measures represents a positive development in strengthening Guyana’s electoral law, important aspects of the law were left unmodified, especially those related to campaign financing. Out of the 26 recommendations issued by the EU EOM after the electoral crisis of 2020, only three have been fully implemented, and two have been partially implemented. The OAS electoral observation team also noted that the majority of its 2020 recommendations had not been implemented. Without addressing important gaps in Guyana’s electoral law, the country’s electoral oversight organism remains weakened and vulnerable to influence.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public are generally free to openly criticize or challenge the government in Guyana. Media workers, activists, and civil society leaders work in a mostly favorable environment; however, occasional infringements on the rights of dissidents have been reported. Some government officials have retaliated against critical journalists or activists through legal action. Individuals have the right to peacefully protest and assemble, which is constitutionally protected and generally upheld by the government. In Guyana, there have been historical issues of police violence that intersect with longstanding interethnic tensions; some incidents of disproportionate use of force against protestors continue to be reported.
Independent, dissenting organizations have not been unfairly shut down by the government in Guyana. CSOs, labor unions, media companies, and other entities are able to organize effectively to publicly voice collective concerns over a wide range of issues—including corruption, censorship, and police violence. For instance, the Guyana Press Association (GPA) has been active within society as a promoter of a free press since 1945, denouncing attempts to intimidate media workers and encouraging the government to adopt stronger safeguards for the press. The country’s media landscape is primarily populated by a few privately owned media companies, most notably The Stabroek News, Kaieteur News, and Guyana Times. While media companies are largely free to operate in Guyana, the independent press faces a challenging financial environment and has to partially rely on state advertising contracts to maintain its operations. Media companies have reported that state advertising has occasionally been pulled or diminished in retaliation for negative coverage of the government. In October 2025, the Ali administration declared that state advertising would be redistributed to include a greater number of digital news outlets.
Guyanese government officials have not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public. The government has not engaged in systematic obstruction campaigns against critics. However, the independent press and activists can face some challenges due to retaliatory legal action undertaken by some government officials. Guyana’s civil society landscape includes a variety of community organizations and trade unions, including the Guyana Teachers’ Union and the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union. The country’s different unions are able to work together and coordinate through the Guyana Trade Union Congress. Moreover, CSOs are sometimes invited to collaborate with the government, creating opportunities to influence policymaking. For instance, in November 2024, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance hosted a Civil Society Consultation so that local CSOs could contribute to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Guyana.
At the same time, activists and journalists who investigate alleged wrongdoing by public officials have sometimes suffered from retaliation in the form of judicial harassment and verbal intimidation. Some officials have initiated civil defamation suits against individuals who publish criticism online or in print. For instance, in August 2025, a top official from the state-owned Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL), Kesh Nandlall, leveled a 20 million GYD (approximately $95,627) lawsuit against journalist Abena Rockcliffe, who is Editor-in-Chief of the independent media outlet, Guyana Standard. The outlet published an article investigating potential conflicts of interest that involved a former government contractor and GPL. Similarly, in October 2024, the head of the police’s Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Fazil Karimbaksh, filed a civil suit against the independent journalist Leroy Smith, which asks for 600 million GYD (approximately $2,867,862) in damages after Smith published articles online about alleged corruption involving Karimbaksh. Prior to the civil suit, Smith had received other threats from the SOCU for his coverage of a criminal investigation in which the former Assistant Commissioner of Police, Calvin Brutus, is implicated. The SOCU threatened to charge Smith with sedition and obstruction of justice, but Smith ultimately did not face criminal charges.
Moreover, in 2021, the police began to pursue a criminal defamation and extortion case against the US-based Guyanese activist, independent news site owner, and vocal government critic, Rickford Burke. In June 2025, however, the High Court found the criminal defamation charges leveraged against Burke to be unconstitutional. According to the Court, criminal defamation violates Article 146 of Guyana’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. This ruling sets an important precedent in protecting dissidents against criminal charges in retaliation for their dissent. However, the threat of civil lawsuits involving very costly penalties in damages remains.
Protests or gatherings in Guyana have not been seriously and unfairly repressed by the government. Individuals are largely free to peacefully assemble and protest. In December 2025, the APNU opposition bloc led protests related to the disbursement of a government cash grant. Similarly, in November 2025, WIN party members and supporters gathered outside of the Guyanese parliament in Georgetown to protest the delay in selecting a new Leader of the Opposition after the September elections. These peaceful opposition protests have occurred without obstructions from the government. Nonetheless, occasional excessive use of force by police has been reported at protests. For instance, in April 2025, the death of a young child, while unrelated to the government’s actions, sparked protests that grew into major demonstrations against the government, including criticism of the efficiency of the justice system and police investigative forces. It was reported that officers fired rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds, causing some injuries. It should also be noted that some of the protests did become violent, prompting the government to set a curfew and opposition leaders to call for calm and peace.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as a check on the government. The courts have acted to protect the rights of dissidents as well as Guyana’s electoral integrity. Moreover, government institutions have demonstrated their ability to investigate and hold officials accountable for misdeeds, even as room for improving accountability mechanisms remains. Operational opacity, delays, and institutional weaknesses can occasionally hinder institutions’ ability to act effectively.
Courts in Guyana have not frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies. While dissidents occasionally face judicial harassment via civil suits as a form of retaliation against criticism of government officials, Guyana’s judiciary has demonstrated that it can act to protect dissidents from being prosecuted for critical speech. In June 2025, the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, Roxane George-Wiltshire, issued a ruling that found criminal charges for defamatory libel to be unconstitutional. George-Wiltshire’s decision stated that Section 113 of the Criminal Law Offences Act violated Article 146 of the Constitution, which guarantees free speech. The decision was issued in relation to charges leveled against the activist Rickford Burke. In addition to dismissing the charges against Burke, the Court set an important precedent to protect critical speech from criminal prosecution. At the same time, many legal cases, including those involving attempts to retaliate against dissidents, become costly multi-year legal battles for journalists and critics due to the chronic understaffing of the judiciary, which causes significant operational delays.
Courts have not unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor. After serious electoral irregularities threatened the integrity of the 2020 elections, Guyana’s highest courts acted to protect the electoral process. In March 2020, Acting Chief Justice George-Wiltshire ruled that the GECOM had the constitutional right to undertake a partial recount of the votes after the opposition and independent electoral observers reported serious irregularities with the vote count of the electoral region four, which includes the country’s populous capital city of Georgetown. Members of the then-incumbent APNU+AFC coalition attempted to file an injunction to stop the recount. However, the judiciary has repeatedly upheld the validity of the recount, which revealed that the votes for region four had been miscounted, inflating the vote share for APNU+AFC. In December 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the Acting Chief Justice’s decision recognizing the GECOM’s authority to undertake the recount. Nonetheless, issues persist regarding judicial delays in the review of electoral petitions, which can remain unresolved long after elections have already been concluded.
Judicial, legislative, or executive institutions have not frequently and unfairly failed to hold government officials accountable. Guyana’s institutions, including the courts as well as electoral and state security mechanisms, have demonstrated their ability to launch investigations and hold officials accountable for misdeeds. Still, corruption and financial crimes are perceived to be widespread within the government; there is room for improving accountability and transparency mechanisms. In February 2025, the Police Service Commission (PSC) dismissed former Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus from the Guyana Police Force after internal hearings found Brutus to have abused his authority over junior police members in order to defraud the police and steal public funds. In addition, legal proceedings involving over 240 charges of financial crimes implicating Brutus and his family were initiated in October 2024 and are ongoing. Similarly, following the 2020 electoral crisis, the GECOM dismissed the electoral officials implicated in the attempted electoral fraud in August 2021. Former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers, former Returning Officer for Region Four, Clairmont Mingo, as well as former GECOM staffers Enrique Livan, Sheffern February, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Millerare are facing 19 charges related to electoral fraud; the trial initiated in February 2025 and is ongoing as of December 2025.
