Last week Minister of Governance Gail Teixeira and the government she represents discovered that the world according to the PPP does not travel well beyond the borders of this land. She was at the time appearing via Zoom before the UN Human Rights Committee in connection with the review for its Third Periodic Report on Guyana. This committee comprises a body of 18 independent human rights experts who monitor the implementation of the International Cove-nant on Civil and Political Rights in the 174 states which are party to it.
The experts serve in their personal capacities and not as representatives of the states which nominated them.
It seems that the Minister and the government were rather more cavalier about this meeting than the circumstances warranted, and appear to have assumed that an approach which was the norm for them in Guyana could be exported to an international setting. As a consequence in the first instance they did not even bother to do their homework.
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, for instance, demanded that the UN HRC make public the names of those who had made “so-called allegations” to the committee on which their questions were based. However, as we pointed out in Monday’s editorial the shadow reports from a variety of groups which had been submitted to the UN HRC had been available for weeks on the UN website. “[O]ne would have expected,” we wrote, “that the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance would have downloaded and distributed them to the relevant government ministries in preparation for the three days of questioning last week.”
But it was not just a question of their lack of preparation; there was also the matter of providing inaccurate information to the Committee apparently in order to score political points. This is a familiar tactic in our local setting, but is much harder to escape with when a committee of outsiders is involved.
The most egregious case of this occurred in relation to Dr Vincent Adams, formerly head of the EPA, when the Minister told Committee expert Hélène Tigroudja that he had overseen the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement, which she said had “been criticized by all, including my government.” She went on to say, “He was part of the secret PSA of 2016 and nobody knew about it, until a year later when the press, thankfully disclosed on the fact that the signature bonus had been parked in a foreign account by the government.”
Dr Adams himself had written the Committee about this misrepresentation, and Ms Teixeira was challenged on it. She was told that according to the information they had received Dr Adams did not begin his mandate with the agency until 1st October 2018, which was two years and three months after the agreement. Her response to this was that he did not appear to have a problem when he was there from 2019 onwards about implementing the 2016 PSA “which we all know was flawed and which we cannot change at this point …” and that that was the point of the reference. The untruthfulness of this defence was painfully evident.
But that was not all. Dr Adams in his letter had adverted to a SN front-page article of February 2018 which attested to the fact that he was the first to publicly criticize the PSA. Furthermore, he said, the EPA had nothing to do with the crafting or managing of the PSA, because that would be a conflict of interest. That was the job of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
As we noted in our report Dr Adams’ dismissal was widely perceived as a move to secure control of the EPA to make possible the speedy approval of ExxonMobil projects. Not surprisingly, therefore, Committee expert Tigroudja asked about the change of director of the EPA, more especially since the person who was in charge before (i.e. Adams) was “extremely competent.” She went on to add: “One of the criticisms against this new Director is perhaps [that he is not] so well versed in environmental standards.” Her enquiry about the independence of the director and the process of his appointment related to her concern that there were influencers who would come into a country once it became an oil producer and try to “distort or deviate benefits from … the Guyanese people.”
This was apparently all too much for Ms Teixeira who promptly relapsed into PPP mode in a fashion very familiar to Guyanese, by proceeding to strongly object to the propriety of the question being asked. The normal practice to which every critic here is accustomed, is for the ruling party to attack the questioner, but since this could not be done directly at any rate, the Minister focused on the question itself, which was described as “odd”, “strange” and “downright inappropriate.” The government had a right to replace the Director, she said, although she also stated, “And we do not feel it is appropriate to ask a country with regards to appointment of a person who is appointed by a Board of our country. The Boards are covered by law…”
For a committee charged with looking at issues related to civil and political rights, how can Ms Teixeira claim that a question regarding the appointment of an EPA head is inappropriate? It is not as if she can intimidate an international committee into censoring legitimate questions because the government she serves does not like them. The contentious nature of her response would have been counter-productive as it would only have communicated to the Committee experts the possibility of something to hide.
The Minister’s combative attitude and attacks on sources was reflected in her answers to another Committee expert, Rodrigo Carazo who was asking about prisons and prison conditions. He said: “With reference to the credibility of our sources who provided us with reports and information, that doesn’t allow for very … positive dialogue …” going on to mention her “confrontational response.”
If in the case of the EPA Ms Teixeira expressed resentment at the questions, in the case of the prisons and on some other topics put by other experts as well, she appears to have targeted the sources of the information on which the expert based the questions. Why she took this line in relation to the matter of the jails when there have been some improvements in conditions in certain locations is difficult to understand, and while reforms are inevitably still to be undertaken in other places of detention, she could have conceded the point and given explanations about what was intended to be done about them. It seems, however, that confrontation is a reaction so engrained in the governing party when facing criticism or probing questions that they cannot abandon the habit even in circumstances where it will cause them no damage.
But it is a reflection too of how the PPP sees the world, which is full of enemies or friends, and no impartial or non-partisan beings seeking the truth. If the UN HRC asks pointed questions, therefore, it is because it has been misinformed by its sources, i.e. the Guyanese opposition. Vice President Jagdeo express-ed this in crude fashion after Ms Teixeira was asked by Committee expert Laurence Helfer about corruption allegations against the Vice President. The fact that he was American and came from New York attracted Mr Jagdeo’s attention, who told reporters that his questions did not reflect what the US government thought. He had been contaminated, said the Vice President, by sources in New York. Committee expert Helfer does not, of course, represent the US government, and so what Washington may or may not think of the Committee’s questions is hardly relevant.
Never a one to mince his words, Mr Jagdeo went on to say that he believed the questions submitted were “stupid questions.” While they did not have to be asked they still were asked, he said, going on to add, “It was propaganda from the Opposition that made its way up to that Committee…we will respond to it.” It is a reflection of many of our problems that in the view of Freedom House everything the opposition says is bad; the possibility that even they might sometimes have a valid point to make is dismissed out of hand. So much for the political rights which the government theoretically espouses.
But added to this is the fact that Mr Jagdeo’s words effectively dismiss the work of the UN HRC itself, and if that really is the view of the government it can only be asked why Guyana is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at all. According to the Vice President, the administration seemingly has no questions to answer on that subject since everything it does is beyond criticism.
In a subsequent statement Guyana said that the facts relating to several matters over the three days were raised in “an inaccurate and misinformed manner” particularly as these pertained to the corruption allegations against the Judiciary, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Vice President Jagdeo. “The Government objects to these allegations and has urged the Human Rights Committee to carry out due diligence to verify the information it receives before making unfounded allegations,” said the statement.
All that was required was for the government to answer the questions and make corrections where necessary. Why is that such a problem for it?
