Dear Editor,
In an earlier letter we surveyed the pernicious problems that racial discrimination continues to pose for Guyana’s social, political and economic development. We outlined an approach for overcoming discrimination based on action taken by aggrieved citizens to defend their rights before the law by recourse to the courts. Though such an approach to discrimination is routine in many nations, it is unusual for the law to be used in this context in Guyana. Here racial discrimination is commonly interpreted in a highly charged, political context. Our second letter illustrated the weakness of Guyanese anti-discrimination legislation by drawing attention to the paucity of case law. This third letter describes the programme to rectify this by letting the law play its proper role in the defeat of racial discrimination.
Since our approach is based on action taken by the individual citizen, let us begin with them. If you, as a citizen, feel that you have suffered as the result of some discriminatory action then our advice is simple: seek out a lawyer, present the facts and ask if your case is strong enough to gain redress under Guyanese law through the courts. You may think that this is easier said than done, but much of the rest of the programme aims to alleviate the difficulties that currently hinder such a course of action.
Alternatively, and since much discrimination occurs in an employment setting, you may be able to bring your case through an industrial tribunal. That and other similar, work based, resolution mechanisms may provide an equally viable route for redress. In this, trade unions can do much to provide a valuable service for their members. By educating their officers about how anti-discrimination legislation operates in the workplace they can provide guidance and support for members with deserving cases.
For lawyers what we are advocating is nothing less than a business opportunity. The court cases arising from this approach will represent a new speciality for Guyanese law. We would advise attorneys to refresh their knowledge of this area of law and study how similar laws have been interpreted particularly in other Commonwealth territories. They can then actively seek plaintiffs who require their services and so build their practices. The Guyana Bar Association has a role to play here. It can host public awareness campaigns to bring this mechanism for combatting racism to public attention. In addition, as the roster of competent attorneys in this speciality grows, the Bar Association may want to maintain a publicly available register that citizens can use to find appropriate legal representation.
The success of this programme will depend heavily on the judiciary and its leadership. Given the slow pace at which justice is generally dispensed there seems a clear need for the establishment of a separate Anti-Discrimination Court, with a mandate to efficiently fast-track cases. One previous Chief Justice in discussion of the matter even suggested that it may be prudent for the special courts to be presided over by three-person panels rather than a single judge. That way the natural initial scepticism about fairness of judgments could be more readily overcome. Judges too may need to rebuild their skills in this area that may have atrophied over time through the lack of cases to consider. One cannot help but feel that the judges will relish the challenge that an Anti-Discrimination Court would bring to their judicial practice.
Readers of the first letter will be aware that we have advocated a course of action that is not be dependent on initiation by government. Nonetheless it is beyond dispute that the government can play an important role in the implementation of this programme if it so chooses. First, the approach we present here seems almost tailor made for the recently created Ministries of Social Protection and Social Cohesion. Raising awareness, setting up citizen advice services and support mechanisms and engaging employers and other stakeholders constructively about the implications for them would all be vital roles for these ministries.
The Attorney General’s actions are equally important. Apart from enhancing the public awareness work described above, the Attorney General can choose to advocate within government for resources for the judicial and legal activities required. There is little doubt that this will be a significant factor in the speed of implementation. In addition the Attorney General will be better able to reach out to other territories where similar courts have been established and so more rapidly build our own capabilities.
Much of what we describe for the government applies equally to other political parties and civil society. Even without the resources of the state they can do much of the same good work to bring this anti-discrimination programme to life.
So we present this programme to beat racial discrimination in Guyana: driven by citizens in the active defence of their rights, argued in court by attorneys, rapidly and fairly judged by the judiciary, supported by trade unions and the Bar and resourced by the government, other political parties and civil society. This will be the way forward for inter-racial relations in Guyana, then no longer a debilitating drag on our social, political and economic development as one people.
Yours faithfully,
David Pollard
Peter Fraser
