Gone: The Data Commissioner

THE 592 GUARDIAN

Independent Accountability Journalism

 EDITORIAL •ACCOUNTABILITY

June 2026

Gone: The Data Commissioner, the Witness, and the Charade of Accountability

 On Monday, the high-profile elections fraud trial proceeding before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court was adjourned — not because justice had run its course, but because the State’s own witness had apparently run away.

Aneal Giddings, who served as Information Technology Manager at the Guyana Elections Commission during the catastrophically contested March 2020 General and Regional Elections, is currently out of the jurisdiction. The prosecution, unable to produce him, applied to have his evidence-in-chief received via Zoom. Defence attorney Nigel Hughes objected on grounds that a witness of Giddings’ centrality to the case must appear in person for cross-examination — a position this publication considers entirely correct as a matter of both law and elementary fairness.

Magistrate McGusty offered a reasonable compromise: remote evidence-in-chief, with Giddings present in person for cross-examination. The prosecution sought instructions. When the matter was recalled, the State’s preference was to defer his testimony entirely — until he becomes available.

The court was then informed that the next scheduled witness is former Minister of Home Affairs Robeson Benn, expected on Wednesday, June 24. The trial grinds on. But the question this development raises does not grind on quietly. It detonates.

 The Double Vacancy at the Heart of Guyana’s Digital State

Here is what the public record now compels us to state plainly: Aneal Giddings is not merely a reluctant witness in an elections fraud prosecution. He is, simultaneously, Guyana’s newly appointed Data Protection Commissioner — the sole officer of a statutory body whose mandate is to regulate the collection, storage, processing, and transfer of personal data in a country where an oil boom has accelerated state and corporate data-harvesting at a pace that existing law is utterly ill-equipped to address.

Sources available to The 592 Guardian indicate that Giddings has not temporarily travelled. He has migrated permanently to New York.

If this is accurate, then Guyana currently has no functioning Data Protection Commissioner. The office is not dormant. It is abandoned. And in that vacuum, data harvesting proceeds — commercial, governmental, and extractive — without the statutory oversight the legislature intended when it established the Data Protection Act.

We ask the Ali administration directly: Is the Data Protection Commission operational? Is Aneal Giddings being paid from the public purse while residing permanently in New York? Has the government received formal notice of his departure or his intention to vacate the office? And if he has vacated it in fact if not yet in law, when does the administration intend to tell the Guyanese people?

 A Witness in an Elections Fraud Trial Cannot Simply Be Unavailable

Giddings is not a peripheral figure in this prosecution. As GECOM’s IT Manager during the 2020 elections, he occupied one of the most consequential technical positions in what became the most disputed electoral count in Guyana’s post-independence history. The charges before the court — nineteen counts of conspiracy, implicating Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers, former PNCR Chairperson Volda Lawrence, and others — rest substantially on what happened to the data during that count. Giddings sits at the technical centre of that question.

The defence is right to insist on in-person cross-examination. The State was right to acknowledge it cannot proceed otherwise. But what neither acknowledgement addresses is the deeper structural embarrassment now before this court and this country: the prosecution’s key technical witness has emigrated, and the government that is prosecuting the case appointed that same witness to a statutory regulatory post that now sits empty.

How does one square that appointment with due diligence? Did no one in the relevant ministry ask whether a witness in a live criminal prosecution — one touching directly on his conduct at GECOM — was an appropriate candidate for a statutory office requiring continuous and in-country presence? Or was the appointment itself a form of patronage extended to a figure whose continued cooperation with the prosecution required some form of inducement?

We do not assert the latter as fact. We assert it as a question the public is entitled to have answered, openly, by the administration that made the appointment.

 The Data Protection Vacuum Is Not a Technicality

Guyana’s Data Protection Act was enacted to govern a landscape that is rapidly becoming one of the most consequential regulatory terrains in the country’s modern history. State agencies collect biometric data. Oil companies and their contractors collect proprietary geological data that doubles as territorial intelligence. Telecommunications providers harvest communications metadata. Commercial banks and fintechs process transaction data that, in aggregate, constitutes an intimate record of economic life.

The Data Protection Commissioner is not a ceremonial post. It is the statutory checkpoint between Guyanese citizens and the entities — state and private — that seek to exploit their personal data for commercial or political advantage. In a petrostate economy characterised by procurement opacity, regulatory capture, and institutional thinness, that checkpoint matters.

If the Commissioner’s chair is empty because the appointee has migrated to New York while nominally holding office, then data harvesting is proceeding in a legislative context that provides for oversight but in practice provides none. The companies drilling into Guyana’s data ecosystem — like the companies drilling into its seabed — are operating in a surveillance-friendly vacuum.

The legislature did not pass the Data Protection Act so that it could be administered by a phantom.

 What the Administration Must Do

The 592 Guardian calls on the Ali administration to immediately clarify the status of Aneal Giddings’ appointment as Data Protection Commissioner, including whether he has formally resigned, whether he continues to draw salary or allowances, and whether any acting appointment has been made in his absence.

We call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to publicly address the implications of the prosecution’s key witness having emigrated, and to explain what assurances — if any — the State has secured regarding his return and availability to testify.

We call on the National Assembly’s relevant committee to summon the Minister responsible for the Data Protection Act to account for the operational status of the Commission. The people of Guyana are entitled to know whether the Act they funded through their parliamentary representatives is being administered or merely filed.

And we call on civil society — particularly the legal profession, technology sector advocates, and human rights organisations — to monitor this vacancy actively. The absence of a functioning Data Commissioner is not an administrative oversight. It is a governance failure with direct consequences for every Guyanese whose personal data is being collected, processed, and traded while the office meant to protect them sits dark.

 The elections fraud prosecution is, at its core, a test of whether Guyana’s institutions will hold those who violated the democratic will of the people accountable. If its witnesses can emigrate and its statutory officers can vanish without consequence, that test is already failing. Guyana cannot prosecute electoral fraud on Mondays and tolerate institutional abandonment on Tuesdays. The law applies, or it does not.

 — The Editors, The 592 Guardian