– Guyana does not recognize its competence to hear petitions
The Petitions Unit of the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights says it is not in a position to deal with a complaint made by trade unionist Lincoln Lewis, since Guyana does not recognize its competence to receive and consider petitions.
“The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination cannot examine petitions alleging violations of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) unless the state has made a declaration under Article 14 recognizing the committee’s competence to receive and consider petitions. Guyana has not made the declaration,” the Petitions Unit outlined as the ground for disregarding the petition filed on Lewis’s behalf by attorney Nigel Hughes.
Lewis had petitioned the UN Committee in July, accusing the government of promoting racism and discrimination against persons of African descent through an editorial published in the Guyana Chronicle newspaper.
The response, which was received by Hughes last Thursday, stated that the unit regretted that the petition could not be dealt with.
“You may understand that while we appreciate your reasons for writing to us, the existing procedures require that it is ascertained whether certain preliminary criteria are satisfied before proceeding with the examination of a petition,” the letter said.
Meanwhile the Alliance for Change (AFC) in a statement yesterday said that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is one of the conventions enshrined in Article 154A of the Guyana Constitution.
Article 154 A (1)of the Constitution provides, “every person, as contemplated by the respective international treaties set out in the Fourth Schedule to which Guyana has acceded is entitled to the human rights enshrined in the said international treaties and such rights shall be respected and upheld by the executive, the legislature, judiciary and all organs and agencies of the government and, where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons and shall be enforceable in the manner herein prescribed,” according to the release.
It further stated that Article 154 A (4) of the Constitution provides, “If any person alleges that any of the rights referred to in paragraph (1) has been, is being or is about to be contravened in relation to him or her, then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same manner which is lawfully available, that person may apply to the Human Rights Commission in such manner as the Commission may prescribe for redress.”
According to the AFC “Lewis has been unable to seek any redress under the Convention in Guyana because no Human Rights Commission has been established despite the passage of ten years since the incorporation of the treaty into the Constitution of Guyana and he has been unable to enforce his rights under the treaty at the United Nations Human Rights Commission because the Government of Guyana has failed or refused to recognize the Committee established by the United Nations Human Rights Commission to hear complaints filed by citizens against the State of Guyana claiming racial discrimination”.
The party said the effect of this situation was that what was sold to the public many years ago as a great advance in constitutional law, effected as a result of the changes made to the Constitution pursuant to the Hermandston Accord and the St Lucia Statement, where citizens would be have been able to directly enforce rights conferred upon them under the treaty, “is in effect an awful hoax played out on the citizenry as they cannot enforce any right under the treaty, as no Human Rights Commission has been established in Guyana and the Government of Guyana has failed or refused to recognize the United Nations Human Rights Commission Committee’s competence to receive and consider complaints of racial discrimination made by citizens of Guyana against the Government of Guyana under the Conven-tion on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”.
Lewis had sought relief from the UN committee, arguing that in the absence of a Human Rights Commission (HRC) and a non-functioning Ethnic Relations Commis-sion (ERC), there was no effective local remedy for violation of the rights to citizens guaranteed under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. “Our client fears that there is a real risk of further publications of a similar nature and unless there is urgent relief granted pursuant to the convention, persons of African descent are in real danger of prolonged and sustained racial discrimination by the Government of Guyana,” the petition said.
Describing himself as an African Guyanese, Lewis said that the contents of the editorial, which appeared in the state-owned newspaper, were “racist, sought to promote racial discrimination and were published in violation of the principles” in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
In explaining the alleged violation, Lewis quoted two paragraphs of the editorial, which was entitled ‘Opposition rampages to sow disunity in the country’: (a) “Black youths are socialized by opposition leaders to think that Indians robbed them to get rich, so they automatically feel that they have to wrest by force, even murder, anything Indians have”; and (b) “Hatred of Indians is ingrained into their psyche. Many Indian persons, who grew up in the arms of black people in rural communities have today become fearful anytime a black youth gets too close to them.”
It was stated that Article 2 of the CERD obliges states not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations. “Our client, who is a Guyanese of African descent, is a victim of the racist statements made in the said editorial and is of the opinion that the state through its national newspaper, the Chronicle, has promoted and is seeking to promote racial discrimination against citizens of African descent in Guyana,” the petition stated.
The petition had been sent to UN Committee’s Petitions Team in Geneva, Switzerland and a formal letter of complaint was sent to Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who had responded that the position ignored the local judicial options for redress.
He had said, “In my considered view, your haste to leap-frog the local judicial process in order to prejudicially internationalise your client’s alleged grievance, may have caused you to overlook the proscription imposed by Article 154 (2) of the Constitution, which may altogether disqualify your client’s proposed petition…”
