The Government of Guyana reversed course on Wednesday on its proposal for a closed Sex Offenders Registry, after Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo announced that President Irfaan Ali has instructed the Sexual Offences Amendment Bill be sent to a Special Select Committee of the National Assembly. The President also indicated that both he and Cabinet hold the position that any such registry must be public, a stance that directly contradicts the Ministry of Human Services, which had defended the closed model only hours earlier.
Minister of Human Services Dr. Vindhya Persaud had argued in a two-page statement that the closed registry was supported overwhelmingly during public consultations and reflected international best practice. Her position shifted within hours of the Vice President’s announcement, with Persaud then stating that she too favours an open register and intends to propose the Bill be taken to a Select Committee for further scrutiny.
The Sexual Offences Amendment Bill was tabled in the National Assembly on June 5, 2026, more than fifteen years after the principal Sexual Offences Act was passed in 2010. The Bill seeks to strengthen protections for victims, harmonise court procedures, and remove statutes of limitations on sexual offence prosecutions. While most provisions attracted little objection, Clause 15, which established a closed National Sex Offender Database accessible only to law enforcement, drew widespread public condemnation and triggered the government’s reversal.
The central question in this debate is not administrative. It is moral. Who does a closed registry protect? Not children. Not families. Not the communities where convicted offenders live, work, and worship alongside unsuspecting neighbours. A registry sealed from public view protects only the offender, shielding a person convicted of one of the most serious categories of crime from the social consequences of that conviction.
The argument that a closed model follows international standards is technically accurate but contextually misleading. The United States is the only country that allows full public access to the sex offender registry; Canada allows public access to limited information on high-risk offenders, while all other English-speaking countries maintain registries accessible only by law enforcement. What that comparison omits, however, is that those same countries have built extensive complementary frameworks around their closed registries. In the United States, it is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 500 feet of any school, licensed day care centre, park, trail, or playground. As of 2007, some 27 states and hundreds of municipalities had enacted laws that bar sex offenders from residing near schools, parks, playgrounds and day care centres, with specified distances typically ranging from 500 to 2,500 feet depending on the jurisdiction. Guyana has none of these restrictions. No law governs where a convicted sex offender may live after release. No geographic buffer protects schools, playgrounds, or churches. Without those safeguards, a closed registry does not replicate the international model. It imports only the secrecy while discarding the protections that make secrecy defensible elsewhere. Wikipedia + 2
The employment dimension of this issue has received insufficient attention. Employers can utilise sex offender registration data as one element of robust background screening for those seeking employment or volunteer positions that would give them access to children. Under a closed registry, a Guyanese school, daycare, church, sports club, or domestic employer has no mechanism to determine whether a candidate for hire appears on the database. If an employer unknowingly places a registered sex offender in a position of access to vulnerable persons and harm results, the legal and moral liability is compounded by a system that denied them the information needed to make an informed decision. The people using those services, parents, guardians, and clients, also deserve to know. Informed consent requires information. Globalchildexploitationpolicy
The government’s reversal is welcome. But the debate that follows in the Special Select Committee must go further than simply opening the registry. Parliament must simultaneously legislate residency restrictions, establish employer access protocols, and define what notification obligations exist when a registered offender moves into a community. Opening a registry without those complementary measures is a half-measure. Guyana’s children, families, and institutions deserve the full framework, not just the part that was easy to concede under public pressure.
SOURCE: News Source Guyana, “Government somersaults on planned closed Sex Offenders Registry following public pushback,” June 10, 2026
