Contents of ERC’s commissioners’ letter should have been dealt with internally

Last year, while in the midst of a pandemic, when the PPP/C government was terminating the services of many persons, charging several persons, there was almost a bombardment in the media of the ills of the previous government. By October and November, 2020, based on the tensions which were rising in some sections of the society, I thought that the country was heading in the direction of civil unrest. For some reason, in late November through December last year to mid-January, the intensity of the tension was decreasing; however, from late January this year, the tension has started to increase again.

From my assessment, some of the main reasons for the tension in the latter part of last year was based on anger and disappointment with how the government was dealing with certain sections of the society. My assessment of some of the reasons for the tensions from mid-January, is based on more frustrations and hopelessness. Many people are unhappy with the government’s approach to governance and the optics are not pretty in some quarters. The question many people are asking is, can they endure ‘this’ for the next five years? I think what the government needs to dissect is, what is the ‘this’ and address it. My conclusion is when people say ‘this’, they are referring to the government’s approach to governance relative to some sections of the population. One of my concerns is that with the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are not leaving and cannot leave and not many people are able to go to churches to pray, and frustrations are rising, steadily.

On this note, it is with much disappointment that I read the letter in the press from some of the Commissioners from the Ethnic Relation Commission (ERC) on the matter relative to the APNU+AFC Member of Parliamentarian, Cathy Hughes. The ERC Commissioners who signed the letter in the press were apparently distancing themselves from an earlier letter that was published on Mrs. Hughes’ matter. While I understand that the ERC may have an internal challenge which is being addressed, that should not have reached the press. The more professional approach would have been for the ERC to use its internal conflict resolution and conflict management system/processes to resolve its internal issues. If the ERC cannot resolve its internal issues in an amicable manner, then how can it be the good facilitator, mediator, and negotiator within our society on ethnic issues?

The ERC cannot lead on finding solutions and solving problems if it operates only from the valley with the masses. The leader sometimes has to climb to the top of the highest hill and survey the horizon, understand the various perspectives and dynamics, and then come back down and lead from that higher and wider understanding. One of my wise seniors once told me that it is not always about making the right decisions but sometimes as a leader or manager, you have to make the best decisions under the circumstances. In 1994, over 800,000 people (more that Guyana’s population) were killed in a genocide in Rwanda, over a period of about 100 days; in less than a generation later, Rwanda had become one of the fastest growing African countries.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Rwandan economy had a constant growth of 7.5 percent annually, for ten years. Now if Rwanda could reconcile to a point where such a broken, hurt and devasted society, could move forward together, to a position of sustained economic growth for the country and its people, then surely Guyana and Guyanese can move past what happened in the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, 2000’s, five months of electoral impasse in 2020; and reconcile our differences, come together, and move this country forward just like the Rwandans did. However, the big question is, will our leaders allow us to move on? I want to move on. I am ready to move forward, Editor, are you? Are we as a people ready to reconcile and move forward? Those of us who write, it is because we understand that we need to keep talking, we need to keep the conversation going, but even my fingers are getting tired of writing. Stabroek News and Kaieteur News, Village Voice, Social Media, keep publishing. I hope that those who have ears to hear, will hear.

Many of your readers will say quite correctly that although I am a rather old man, citizen of Guyana only, living abroad, it is my duty to be informed and keep up with developments at home. I try to do this as much as I can to the extent that some comments to my letters ask me to shut up and let the people unite. However, I see myself as one of the contributors to whatever has developed in present day Guyana, whether good or bad, and I am not about to seek a hiding place and behave as though my activity had nothing to do with it.

In this letter I am really seeking for myself and the public advice from those who feel competent to give it. I shall express a point of view on the issue, but I am really seeking to be instructed by anyone able to justify what appears to be precedent.

The issue came to my attention in a press report recently that the Chief Justice had handed down a ruling in response to a litigant that Mr. Ashni Singh and Mr. Winton Brassington should continue to face a charge in the magistrate’s court brought against them by SOCU (Special Organized Crime Unit). Soon after this ruling came to my attention, I heard also from the media that the SOCU had withdrawn its charges against Singh and Brassington. On the face of it a person introducing a prosecution against another has the right to withdraw that prosecution in good faith. Here, however, we are dealing with public officials at a time when claims about transparency are frequently made. I should like to be reminded whether SOCU at the time of withdrawing the charges had explained its reasons to the court or the public. I feel that the public is entitled to know why charges of misconduct against public officials are withdrawn, and not only withdrawn but discontinued after a ruling of the high court implying that the facts revealed some ground for prosecution. Although SOCU is not a court I argue in my simplicity that in this case it exercised the function of the tribunal with power to overrule a decision of the Chief Justice or the High Court. I hope some legal scholar will enlighten curious citizens about the status and implications of SOCU’s action especially after the High Court had made a ruling.

I had heard about the year 2018 officials of the previous government (PPP) being arrested on charges in connection with Pradoville 2. Even then I had missed the existence of SOCU. I first learned of SOCU’s existence when its legal counsel appeared in magistrate’s court 1 and withdrew charges against His Excellency President Dr. Irfaan Ali and argued that he was doing so to facilitate “smooth government.” He explained that if the charge had not been withdrawn the president could have difficulty entering certain countries like Canada, even on an official visit. I have to add that it was while learning of the withdrawal of the charges against Singh and Brassington that I first became aware that Justice Ms. Claudette Singh had been legal advisor to SOCU at the a time when charges were laid against Singh and Brassington.

I have been saying privately that our high rate of migration has affected many areas of public administration. One result of this wastage is apparently the reality or the excuse that the list of persons of working age competent to fill certain offices gets shorter and shorter. And I do not know from a distance whether all strata and subclasses and social ranks of the population have an equal chance of being chosen.