Constitutional/legal process for blacklisting posed challenges

Dear Editor, There is a particular section of the media that appears to have arrogated to itself the task of setting the agenda for the APNU+AFC coalition either in collusion with the coalition or simply on its own. The role was played out while the PPP/C was in government and it continues to this day unabated. There is a huge pretence at playing a balancing act by carrying front page stories hostile to the PPP but mildly critical of the Granger administration. And its letter columns reflect more or less the same pattern. On balance however the main thrust is pro-government.

The public was informed a few days ago, that “200 persons have been Blacklisted.”

This is fake news beyond the shadow of a doubt. The matter was reported locally as though it was a fait accompli. These are scare tactics intended to create psychological discomfort for those persons who, in the view of the ‘makers and breakers’ of government, are being targeted/witch hunted by SOCU and the GPF on the instructions of the political directorate.

But this is not only fake news it is a mischievous piece of journalism and above all intimidatory.

What is more distasteful is that that the Ministry of Public Security has not seen it fit to either confirm or deny the claim that hundreds of Guyanese have already been “Blacklisted.” Indeed, government must be rubbing its hands in glee at the publication of this piece of intimidatory misinformation which it knows cannot be an accomplished fact.

As a former Minister of Home Affairs I find it deeply disappointing that the Minister of Public Security who is a lawyer would allow such a journalistic travesty to pass right under his nose and not debunk it from a constitutional/legal and professional perspective.

During my tenure as Minister of Home Affairs the question of the “Blacklisting” of persons of interest was raised from time to time by the police, but the constitutional/legal process that had to be followed posed challenges that made the task well nigh impossible, considering the legal implications and the fact that “Blacklisting” could be overturned by a court of law.

This brings us to Bishop Edghill’s recent missive to the Commissioner of Police/Chief Immigration Officer (COP/ CIO) requesting “the identity of resident Guyanese who have been ‘Blacklisted’ from leaving the jurisdiction.” Bishop Edghill’s request is based on what was announced in a section of the media but never denied by the Minister of Public Security or the Chief Immigration Officer. Both the Minister and the CIO, being public officers, are duty bound to supply the information requested by Bishop Edghill under the Access to Information Act and in the interest of transparency and accountability.

Sources say that the information requested will not be provided because what was published is more fictional than factual, and in any event, since it came over as factual information, if it exists it will not be handed over unless the court so orders. It means therefore that Bishop Edghill will be forced to go to court to pursue his request. This will open up another area of controversy. The question is whose interests would such controversy serve? Yours faithfully, Clement J Rohee