Dear Editor,
1 write as Toshao of Isseneru Indigenous Village and in response to the article published by SN Sunday (3 July 2022), titled ‘IACHR denies gov’t request for a hearing on lsseneru rights violations’. I recall at the outset that the Prime Minister has observed that the IACHR decision on lsseneru, and violation of our rights, and how the Government addresses same, at its core, is about “respect for the rule of law domestically and internationally” (SN, 11 May 2022). With this in mind, I again invite the Government to meet with lsseneru Village to discuss and agree on what measures would be required to repair the numerous rights violations identified by IACHR. We are saddened that Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira, thinks, as stated in SN Sunday, that the prospect for a meeting with us is “highly unlikely.” That she then refers to various actions carried out in 2013 to justify this, all of which predated the IACHR’s December 2021 decision, is difficult to understand. These activities were prompted by our submission of a petition to the IACHR, which happened after the then-Minister of Amerindian Affairs unilaterally made decisions about our lands and after the Guyana Court of Appeal failed to even hear, let alone resolve our claims in a timely manner (i.e., after almost five years and to this day).
We do not understand how Minister Teixeira connects the events of 2013 and 2021. At this time, the only issue that is relevant is what the Government would do to comply with its international legal obligations as set out in the IACHR’s report, not what may have happened in 2013 (all of which was inconsequential either way). The NTC visit, for instance, followed closely on the heels of the then-Chair of the NTC denouncing our village for having the temerity to seek protection of our rights before the IACHR. He did so during a session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, held at the UN headquarters in New York. He did so as a member of the Government delegation, sitting a few seats away from the former Minister of Amerindian Affairs, and he did so in a statement typed up on Ministry of Amerindian Affairs’ letterhead. In this light, how could a visit to lsseneru by the NTC be seen as constructive or truth-seeking at that time, or a reason to not now talk to us? In her remarks to SN Sunday, Minister Teixeira mentions intensive hunts for documents that were undoubtedly delivered to the Government, as she also later admits. The Government’s responses were referred to in a SN editorial as containing “disreputable” arguments. Indeed, these arguments denigrated our culture and relationship to our traditional lands and were deemed highly offensive by our community. We observe that no Government, whether before 2015, 2015 to 2020 or post 2020, has indicated any interest in upholding or even discussing our rights. This is the reason we were forced to go to the IACHR in the first place. It is not appropriate to play politics with these issues, a point also made to the Government by the IACHR in its June 23 response to the Government’s submission of June 20, 2022. The IACHR stated that the State of Guyana is responsible “regardless of changes of government over time. Therefore, a government cannot allege the actions or omissions of its predecessor as an exoneration of responsibility in the handling of a case or its ignorance of it.”
Minister Teixeira did not mention in her remarks to SN Sunday that the IACHR granted the Government an extension NOT to review documents and provide a response to those or otherwise as if our case was newly submitted. Nor did it grant an extension of time so that the Government could contest the IACHR’s decision or parts of it. Instead, the IACHR stated in its response to the Government’s June 20 submission that “the case in question is currently in the stage of compliance with recommendations. In view of this, it is important for the State to provide the required information on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations and resolve the situation….” In short, the IACHR only wants to hear about what the Government would do to comply with its decision. It is difficult to see how the Government can provide this information without talking to Isseneru in a serious and structured manner, aimed at reaching an agreement with us. Again, we are willing partners in such talks should the Government wish to join us. As noted above, the Prime Minister has stated that the nature of the Government’s response to the IACHR decision is fundamentally related to “respect for the rule of law domestically and internationally.” We fully agree. The Caribbean Court of Justice, our highest court, also agree that Guyana’ s international obligations to respect the rights of indigenous peoples are essential to the rule of law and the related concept of protection of the law (see e.g., Art. 1490 of our Constitution). This is stated clearly in judgments adopted by the CO in 2015 (Maya leaders Alliance v. AG Belize) and, less specifically, in 2018 (McEwan and Ors v. A.G. Guyana), among others. The rule of law is also crucially important to those who would responsibly invest in Guyana and a vital consideration when assessing the risks of doing so (e.g., those who would purchase carbon credits).
The IACHR has explained in extensive – for us, at times, excruciating and painful – detail what Guyana’s international obligations are in relation to our village, and how these obligations have been disregarded for generations. We, the people who bore and continue to bear the brunt of this, were already aware of the severity of these violations. How can we believe the Government’s words about the LCDS or carbon trading or anything else – how can investors be secure as well, if is not willing to meet with and uphold the rule of law when it comes to the basic rights of indigenous citizens? Talking to us about how to repair these violations would be a good first step, yet the Minister feels that such a simple courtesy is “highly unlikely.” The IACHR has made itself available to both parties to discuss this in a “working meeting,” one that could be held during one of its upcoming sessions. We are willing to do so if the Government is serious about discussing how to repair the violations and resolve this situation. This would express at least some commitment to the rule of law that is so far not apparent in the various attempts to deflect and blame others, or, to refer to unrelated and irrelevant events in 2013.
To conclude, we are a proud Akawaio indigenous community, one of the last that is still standing on the Middle Mazaruni River. We are still here after more than 100 years of our lands being despoiled and our people disrespected and ill-treated for the benefit of others. The miners named in the IACHR decision are merely the latest. There are many more and some of them continue to destroy our lands today. We are fully aware that they were all authorized by the Government. They operate with impunity given the abject and ongoing failure of the Government and the judiciary to respect and uphold our rights. Our kin in the Upper Mazaruni have been waiting more than four years for a decision in their case before the High Court (submitted in 1998!), despite the Time Limit requirement in the Judicial Decisions Act 2009 requiring that decisions be notified within 120 days unless an extension is granted. This is consistent with our experience also. Where is the rule of law for us? We have no desire to fight with anyone, but we insist that we are treated fairly and in accordance with our internationally guaranteed rights as indigenous people. We call on the Government to meet with us and to discuss how we can move forward together to give effect to the IACHR’s decision.
Sincerely,
Dhaness Larson
Toshao
Isseneru Village
