Dear Editor,
This letter is the first of a few, all pointing to the quality of governance in Guyana today. Let me say at this point that I expect as a result of points raised in these letters to hear more about my “warped mind,” a faculty which allows a few persons to raise matters which though strictly of public interest may be delicate.
It is true that citizens have the right to criticize the judgment of a court and should run no risk so long as they do not suggest corruption on the part of the court. President Jagdeo’s exercise of his right as a citizen in questioning the wisdom of the court exposes the model he has chosen in his conduct of his office. He does not allow me to forget my statement asking Guyanese to give him, the young man, a chance.
President Jagdeo, as far as I have seen reported, does not flaunt a personal weapon. Since I wrote that and held it, events have told me that he does flaunt what he treats as a personal weapon.
The way of autocrats is to intimidate and this is part of what the President does when, for example, he takes to the public media to criticize a judge in a case in which he was the “virtual defendant.”
The decision of a committee of eminent lawyers to approach the courts for a ruling on the issue of the Chief Justice’s sitting at the same time on a high bench and on a higher bench is an example of the kind of patient work necessary, along with agitation and protest, to reveal the true quality of the governance Guyanese have been suffering from. The lawyers deserve public recognition. They have my thanks. I will not presume to speak of the judge’s decision, as judgment is what is expected of judges. Because of their position, judges may well get the impression that they are being intimidated when the Supreme Executive authority publicly questions their decisions. The lawyers’ action and the ruling on it bring out the fact that Guyana has judges, but not a judiciary nor a judicial culture. Judicial culture, in our system, must include the President. The Constitution also lists and has always listed the Leader of the Opposition as part of the Executive.
Do these officials ever reflect that an important part of their calling, if they have a calling, is to act in such a way as to be an example to a whole generation?
There was a time when the present government as opposition fell in with the labelling of the PNC’s street zealots as thugs. It was justified because they hurt people. Now many street thugs hold high office, and in many cases make it a lifestyle.
This is so whether they are cutting the ground from under a newspaper’s feet by denying vital advertisements, or denying a long-standing subvention to the Critchlow Labour College, or committing that well-known offence discharging a loaded firearm in public.
I am now hearing the explanation that the subvention has been withheld because the Federation of Unions of Government employees (FITUG) is now a rival of the TUC and it will be unjust to keep giving the subvention to the TUC. The government clearly aims to destroy the present TUC. So what? Are we going to have two trade union centres, two unions for pubic service workers, and two Labour Colleges?
Then there is the cry of the WPA’s calling for certain standards in the Ministry of Labour which it seems has failed to prosecute an employer for alleged violation of an employee’s rights and labour laws. There has been no statement by the ministry although former CCWU unionist, Mr Trotman, has been in touch with it. Perhaps a demand for prosecution of a suspect offender against a worker is now old fashioned? This kind of prosecution was generally pressed by the colonial labour officers. Letting off an employer would be a scandal. Here the name of Critchlow and the GLU’s pioneering record come to mind. I am sure that Mr Ashton Chase, SC, to many of us from the fifties, heir to Critchlow’s mission, has been taking note.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
