The government is not accustomed to responding to investigative questioning, let alone criticism from outside entities. Within the country, of course, critics are dismissed peremptorily, often in abusive fashion, and their concerns either derided or ignored. While the official representatives of foreign nations will, on occasion, make gentle suggestions about governance publicly, it is never done in a challenging form. Since this is now an oil producing state, foreign contact takes the shape of discussions about investment or trade, and more recently support in the face of Venezuelan imperial delusions. Such occasional engagements of an interrogatory nature as there are come from committees or boards and the like attached to international bodies such as the UN, the OAS or the World Bank and IMF. The latter two, of course, have rather specialised economic and financial interests.
Since it hasn’t yet learned the art of measured and non-confrontational responses to penetrating questions, whether or not these are on the mark, the government resorted to its usual accusations during its periodic review by the UN Human Rights Committee the week before last. In an official Statement commenting on the Committee’s advance unedited version of its Concluding Observations, the government said: “the expectations of a constructive dialogue during the process of review with the Committee … have fallen short.”
It described the process as “gruelling”, something which was aggravated by the limited time for responses.
And then it fell back on its traditional habit of attacking the Committee’s sources, more especially since “broad statements were made which were not based on fact, or from credible sources …” Merely assuming a source was credible, the Statement went on to say, did not mean the information provided was “verifiable and factual.” It then said there were numerous sources of credible and verifiable information which seem to have been ignored by the Committee, including Guyana’s many submissions in response to UN rapporteurs and independent experts’ requests for information over the past three years.
But then that is the problem: these and the other sources suggested were mostly Guyana’s submissions or voluntary review reports. It is not that it was not appropriate for the Committee to use them; of course that is not the case. It was rather that it could not confine its background data to what was supplied by these; it was also obliged to look at academic, civil society and even opposition sources as well, many of which, and in the case of the opposition, all of which, would have provided data which the ruling party would find objectionable whether accurate or not. Ms Teixeira who led Guyana’s delegation to the review, should have expected to encounter some inaccurate information; all that was required was for her to correct it, not launch into a diatribe about how a question was inappropriate, as she did in one instance.
In its Statement the government expressed its disappointment that “serious allegations” had been made against named officials of the Government of Guyana which were based neither on fact nor credible sources. This presumably was an indirect reference to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and allegations made in Vice News in connection with a Mr Su. What was said in the Committee related to questions about investigations into the allegations. Ms Teixeira, on the other hand, was guilty of actual fabrications of a defamatory character in relation to former head of the Environmental Protection Unit, Dr Vincent Adams. In addition, her answer when challenged not only did not correspond to what she had originally said, but also still did not reflect the facts of the situation. It was a classic illustration of the government statement about sources and information: i.e. it was not sufficient to assume a source was credible, since that in and of itself would not mean the information supplied was “verifiable and factual.”
All that Ms Teixeira achieved by her falsehoods therefore was to confirm to the Committee that she and her delegation were not necessarily a credible source in relation to all the information which they relayed.
There would have been reliability issues of a different kind when it came to the political situation. In this instance, what the government believes to be the case, or more likely wants to believe to be the case, does not reflect the reality. This was apparent from its comment in the Statement: “The state party [i.e. Guyana] pointed out that the ‘dual ethno-political polarization’ is factually incorrect. In 2020, nine (9) different parties with diverse compositions contested the general and regional elections.”
All non-partisan observers both within and without this country along with some who are partisan, recognise the ethnic nature of our politics. This does not mean to say that ethnic support for one or the other two major parties is absolute; it is not. However the main political constituencies are still ethnically based and even the man and woman in the street know this. As for the ‘evidence’ in the Statement that nine different parties with diverse compositions contested the elections, that is risible. They were so minuscule that on their own they could not secure a single seat in Parliament. The three which did manage one seat did so on a joinder arrangement. The Committee would not have to put itself out much to see the political facts, starting with the representation in the National Assembly, where the PPP/C holds a one-seat majority.
Such unsupportable contentions about the politics of the land will not help the government’s credibility with the Committee, but the Statement went on to reject the assertion that there was an ethnic “divide” or ethnic tensions. As evidence of this it referenced equitable access to government programmes, goods and services and skills training, etc, as well as, for example, the Ethnic Relations Commission and statutes.
This is, of course, a tricky area, because in spite of all these things there can still be ethnic tensions. The government believes it can separate ethnicity from politics, but members of the Committee would know that the administration refuses to deal with the party which most Africans voted for in 2020. As such that is a source of tension or potential tension in so far as African-chosen representatives are being rejected for inclusion and consultation, even when that is constitutionally mandated, as in the case of the appointment of a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice. These appointments, or rather lack of them, were a concern to the Committee, and the Guyana delegation did not provide adequate responses to questions based on ‘fact’.
In an earlier statement to the Committee, submitted on 22nd March after the hearings had concluded, it was said that Guyana placed paramount importance on consultation and inclusivity in decision-making at all levels. It pointed too to the constitutional reform process which was expected to begin this year and which would take a consultative approach. It would seem, however, that the Committee was still not completely convinced in all respects where inclusivity and consultation were concerned.
The latter particularly was an issue where the Indigenous people and environmental matters were concerned, and Guyana’s responses and additional information do not appear to have assuaged the Committee. In its Statement the government has insisted that it provided information demonstrating that Free, Prior and Informed Consent was a policy which was implemented, something which some villages dispute, while it claimed information on the consultation process for the creation of the expanded and updated Low Carbon Development Strategy 2030 included indigenous communities across the country and other stakeholders.
In its Statement the government challenged the Committee on a range of other matters, although to what extent it will amend its conclusions remains to be seen. It has to be said that in its unedited Concluding Observations the Committee welcomed sixteen legislative and policy measures which it titled ‘Positive aspects,’ but this apparently did not appease the government, which seemed to expect a pass on the answers to all questions.
It ended its Statement with the accusation:
“The Concluding observations have continuous repetition of allegations and with much regret, the State party notes that instead of heeding requests … to verify information, the AUV Concluding Observations ha[ve] taken the allegations even further and ha[ve] now made drastic generalisations, and, ha[ve] even gone as far as referring to what may be individual experiences as ‘widespread.’ Furthermore, most disappointing, the Committee has now based its concluding observations and recommendations on these generalisations.”
If it calms down from its state of high dudgeon, it could look at the observations with a cooler eye, and see where many of them, with arguably some exceptions, might be both accurate and helpful. It could use it as an exercise in how to take on board justifiable criticism.