Guyana has been the subject of poor reports from international organisations because its record of governance has been poor.
Criticism of the performance of the Government of Guyana by various international organisations has become commonplace. Unfavourable international attention has been directed at the quality of governance with respect to human rights and human security in particular. Unpleasant as the scrutiny of the developed democracies in the international community has been, it has cast light on the dark side of the government where the quality of citizens’ lives has been impaired or, in some extreme cases, lost.
The inevitability of international scrutiny should have set the framework for the attendance of Minister of Foreign Affairs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett – who was accompanied by Guyana’s Ambassador to Belgium Patrick Gomes and Presidential Adviser on Governance Gail Teixeira – to a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva Switzerland, earlier in May. That meeting’s report was worse than an embarrassment to the administration. The interactive exchange between the states’ representatives on the Working Group and the Guyana Delegation indicated not only a gross underestimation of Guyana’s responsibilities as a state within the international community but also the neglect of its domestic obligation to ensure the safety of its own citizens. This was the basis of the concerns of the other states.
The Geneva meeting was not Ms Texeira’s first excursion into the rough waters of foreign relations. She should have been better prepared. She was responsible for presenting Guyana’s report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, which falls under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at its 6-24 November 2006 session. That Committee concluded by expressing its regret that, as a signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Government of Guyana took 17 years to present its initial report.
The Committee issued over twenty observations and recommendations on Guyana. The Committee was concerned particularly about reports of widespread police brutality and the use of force and firearms. It called on the Government, among other things, to strengthen the administrative measures to control the indiscriminate issuance of firearms licences; to take immediate steps to reduce overcrowding in prisons; to take effective steps to guarantee the accountability of the Police Force, to prevent acts such as the alleged practice of extra-judicial killings by members of the Police Force and to guarantee that prompt, impartial and effective investigations are conducted, that the perpetrators are prosecuted and effective remedies are provided to compensate the victims, among other things. It also expressed concern about reports of the excessive length of pre-trial detention which could occasionally last between three and four years.
The Committee expressed its concern about the “inability of the Office of the Ombudsman to continue functioning as a result of the non-appointment, since January 2005, of an Ombudsman by Parliament, apparently due to political reasons.” It called on the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the resumption of the activities of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Several recommendations that were made to the Guyana Government since 2006 were never implemented in fact. Failure to do so has had a consequential effect on Guyana’s record on human rights and public security over the intervening years. When Ms Rodrigues-Birkett took the delegation to Geneva this month, therefore, she seemed to be overwhelmed by the fact that there was a yawning gap between Guyana’s actual performance and its international obligations. Guyana cannot expect to be rewarded with plaudits and good reports when it has consistently failed to conform to international norms of good governance.
Several subjects were discussed during the interactive dialogue in Geneva but it was in relation to public security that several states’ representatives expressed their strongest criticism about Guyana’s performance. Ms Rodrigues-Birkett was handed a package of 112 factual complaints. She admitted that the Guyana Delegation did not reject any recommendations. It accepted 57 while agreeing that the remaining 55 will be considered. Governance goes on forever and the administration will be required to report on its compliance with them to the plenary of the Human Rights Council later this year and. Indeed, for years to come. One by one, the developed democracies plied the Guyana delegation with accurate accusations and made pointed recommendations to enable the administration to fulfil its obligations.
Australia referred to allegations of police brutality and the incarceration and torture of minors. Brazil voiced concern about reports of ill-treatment by the police force. Canada was concerned about reports of the excessive use of force by security forces and the recent torture of 15-year-old Twyon Thomas by police officers. It called on Guyana to conduct thorough and independent investigations of all allegations of extrajudicial killings, taking into account the findings of the Report of the United Nations Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the ‘phantom death squad.’ France expressed concern about reported excessive use of force by the police and inquired about how Guyana intended to stop that practice and ensure that complaints would lead to impartial investigations and prosecutions of alleged offenders.
The Netherlands was concerned about reports of the excessive use of force by the army and police forces and asked whether measures to ensure independent investigations were being considered. Sweden mentioned the allegations of excessive force and “numerous instances of torture” by security and police forces and noted that impunity for Government officials was a serious problem. Sweden inquired about what measures had been taken to investigate alleged human rights violations committed by a ‘death squad’ between 2006 and 2008. The United Kingdom urged that an “immediate” commitment be made to reforming the security agencies and the United States was concerned with reports of extrajudicial killings and the use of excessive force by the police.
Guyana’s Delegation, in response, has now gone on record as having committed the administration to consider recommendations to ensure that “impartial” investigations are held into all allegations of killing, torture and physical abuse by the police and army; that complaints will be subject to “immediate, accurate and independent investigating” and that perpetrators will be prosecuted and effective remedies will be provided to the victims.
The Guyana government over the years seemed not to have understood the importance of the relationship of human rights, human security and good governance to modern inter-state relations. The Human Rights Council has demonstrated its capacity to expose the failures of national governance to international examination.
Spokesmen in the administration have reacted to criticisms in the annual reports of the United States Department of State with anger. The Report on Human Rights Practices issued by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has often stirred resentment largely because it has been concerned not merely with the suppression of crime but, moreso, with the safety of the citizen. It has also been a useful gauge to assess the quality of life in this country. The Report’s primary goal has been to examine human security, that is, the protection of people from critical and pervasive threats and situations and the preservation of vital freedoms. It also discussed the systems to ensure people’s ability to live in dignity.
Government policy traditionally has been concerned with national security that focuses on protecting the state from internal terrorism and from external aggression. Secure states, however, do not automatically mean secure citizens. Human security is about protecting individuals and communities from any form of political violence that might arise from socio-economic inequity, poverty, political persecution and racial discrimination regardless of the country’s safety from foreign attack.
In Guyana’s case, the challenges to human security are there for all to see. Far more Guyanese citizens have been killed by the Guyana Police Force than by foreign armed forces. Far more women are victims of violence in their own homes and communities than are ill-treated when they travel abroad.
The US Report on Human Rights Practices most recently deemed the “most significant reported abuses included killings by police, torture and mistreatment of suspects and detainees by security forces, poor prison and jail conditions, and lengthy pre-trial detention.” An earlier report – Trafficking in Persons Report – issued by the United States Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, called attention to the insecurity of the lives of some of our first citizens. That report confirmed that many victims of trafficking are young indigenous women who are taken from the hinterland to work elsewhere in the country and are subjected to various forms of degrading treatment.
Criticism, inevitably, has been directed generally at the understaffed and under-resourced Guyana Police Force. The police, on the one hand, have indeed been involved in several unlawful killings, in most cases shooting victims while attempting to make arrests or while crimes are being committed. According to the report, however, “Police seldom were prosecuted for unlawful killings.” The police, on the other hand, have also been criticised for their inadequate response to trafficking in persons and violence against women.
There is certainly no shortage of legislation against shooting suspects, trafficking in persons and other crimes. The problems lie largely with the failure of the law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system to implement the law and of the administration to ensure that the country is governed in accordance with the law. The criminal justice system exists to protect citizens and promote human security by ensuring implementation of the law. The administration must also ensure that its arms and agencies receive the human, financial and material resources to enable them to do their duty.
It is high time for the administration to reconsider its official attitude to international organisations and reports that are critical of its performance. It can no longer pretend to its local audience that its actions have been commendable at all times when the international community is aware that the opposite is true.
The administration needs to be reminded constantly of its obligations under the Charter of Civil Society for the Caribbean Community. Under both international conventions and municipal law, the state’s obligations are clear. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” These exact words were adopted unchanged by the Caribbean Community’s Charter to which Guyana subscribes.
