The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOG) is suing the government over its dismissal of 1,972 Amerindians previously employed under the Youth Entrepreneurship and Apprenticeship Programme (YEAP), which it contends was a discriminatory and unlawful decision.
The action initiated by Peter Persaud, President of TAAMOG and a staunch defender of the former PPP/C administration that started the programme, is seeking, among other things, a declaration by the court that the dismissals were unlawful as well as damages in excess of $10M.
The cessation of the programme was “intentionally done as an act of economic and financial sabotage against the indigenous people of Guyana driven by a political, ethnic and racial motive,” Persaud says in an affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, which was filed at the High Court yesterday.
The Attorney General is listed as the respondent in the suit, which was prepared by former Attorney General Anil Nandlall as well as Euclin Gomes and Manoj Narayan.
Minister of Indigenous People’s Affairs Sydney Allicock had told Stabroek News last month that YEAP had not achieved its stated objectives and in many cases those recruited were used to do political party work.
Allicock said while it was indicated that the programme was intended to train young people in skills, to date there is nothing to show. “After so many years, there is not one person with a certificate who could say well they are trained in computer repairs or mechanics…,” he said. “$60 million, every month, is a healthy sum. It is $720 million per year and our findings so far is that the goods were not delivered,” he added, while noting that to continue to spend the money without results did not make sense.
After a full review, he said, the government would look at the areas that are in dire need of assistance and ensure more leadership training, focusing on areas of accountability and academic and economic development.
Persaud, who says he filed the suit on behalf of the 1,972 Community Support Officers (CSOs), who are all persons of Amerindian ancestry, deposes that he was advised and believes that the dismissals were arbitrary and in contravention of the rules of natural justice. He also says the dismissals were discriminatory and in contravention of the fundamental freedoms, guarantees of protection from discrimination, the right to work, equality and the protection of the indigenous peoples. He contends that the CSOs had a legitimate expectation that their engagement and/or employment under the programme would continue and accordingly their dismissals “defeated of that legitimate expectation.”
In his affidavit, Persaud says that up to April, 2015, 1,972 CSOs, in approximately 187 Amerindian villages and communities, were registered as part of the programme and through it had contributed significantly to their households and village economies through the services they provided as well as the stipends they earned.
He says upon engagement, each CSO was paid a monthly stipend of $30,000, payable every three (3) months upon submission of monthly reports validated by the Village Council and or Community Development Officer (CDO). Since the commencement of the programme, these CSOs have been employed continuously and have been receiving their monthly stipend, he adds.
Positively impacts
This source of employment, Persaud contends, positively impacts upon the lives of 12,000 Amerindians in 2,000 households in approximately 187 communities and cumulatively, this constitutes approximately sixteen percent (16%) of the total Amerindian population in the hinterland.
He also says he has been advised by Nigel Dharamlall, the former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, that when the 1,972 CSOs were dismissed, the payroll for the stipends payable in April were already prepared.
However, after the change of government caused by the May 11th elections, these payments were withheld and so far no payment has been made, he adds.
Persaud stresses that the CSOs and their dependents rely upon the monies as a source of their livelihood and the “cessation of this revenue flow into the village economy will have devastating consequences upon the Amerindian communities throughout the hinterland.” Further, he says that he has been informed by them that to date they have not been given a reason for their non-payment nor were they offered an opportunity to respond to any questions and/or concerns regarding the continuation of their engagement and/or employment.
Additionally, he notes that Guyana, as a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Vienna Declaration, has an obligation to preserve and protect indigenous peoples, based on principles that include justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination, equal treatment, right to self-determination and right to work.
According to Persaud, the YEAP is similar to other programmes offered to coastal residents, who are primarily of “different ethnicities.”
“Such similar programmes include Women of Worth (WoW), Youth Choice Initiatives, Small Business Bureau Services, Peer Education, Health Initiatives, Community Liaison Officers et cetera and as far as I am aware, these programmes remain intact and persons from other ethnicities continue to benefit from these programmes,” he adds.
Persaud deposes that in June, 2013, the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs launched YEAP with the aim of supporting Amerindian youths, within the 18 to 40 years age group, in the various villages and communities through apprenticeship attachments that allow for capacity building, strengthening individual interests and entrepreneurial aptitudes.
He says the programme’s objectives were to create employment opportunities and generate income for young people in hinterland Amerindian villages; to build capacity of young individuals in the hinterlands through skills-based training in various competencies relevant to community and enterprise development; and to build competencies in decision-making and leadership geared towards young people’s effective participation in self and community development.
“These young people when trained in various disciplines are expected to play and indeed have played a significant role in the provision of technical expertise and apprenticeship positions in their respective offices based in the villages and sub-regions,” he notes, while pointing out that the scheme was based on recommendations from Toshaos, Amerindian Leaders and the National Toshaos Council.
According to the Notice of Motion, the court is being asked for a declaration that the decision of Allicock, and/or the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Indigenous People’s Affairs, to terminate the services of CSOs is unlawful and contrary to Articles 40, 149, 149(A), 149(D) and 149(G) of the constitution and to award damages in excess of $10M for breach of the constitutional rights of the affected CSOs.
The court is also being asked to issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the provisions.
