Dear Editor,
Given what is unfolding in the public domain, I feel compelled to offer other perspectives. On numerous occasions, I argued that the Ethnic Relations Commission must be non-partisan, consistent and timely in its action and, in keeping with its mandate, be prepared to offer meaningful intervention with regard to the political impasse from 2018-2020. On those occasions I was firm that the good work done through messaging for racial healing and numerous interactions with stakeholders across the country, would be overshadowed by what appeared to be a sense of partisanship.
Sadly, the Commission, in my view, failed to offer impactful and definitive responses and take action when it should have on election-related matters pre- and post-March 02, 2020. It is no secret that the Commission was heavily criticized for not responding to what transpired especially during the five-month period following the election. One may ask – why my response now? What is its relevance and the timing? Both, in my view, allow for clarifications. I did speak out internally with the expectation that the Commission as a whole would have responded in a manner expected and in keeping with its mandate. While support was found in a few, in the end the majority prevailed. In hindsight, maybe I should have gone public long before. I have been consistent in stating internally that any utterance or action by anyone that leads to disharmony, must be of concern to the Commission. I held firm that, whilst ethnic related contentions are the main thrust of the Commission’s mandate, they are not isolated from political developments especially given our history of elections.
Point “Q” of the Commission’s constitutional mandate speaks to “identify and analyze factors inhibiting the attainment of harmonious relations between ethnic groups…and to make recommendations”. Political developments that lead to discontent are important factors. The post March 02, 2020, election period, was no different and, in my view, should not have been ignored by the Commission. Permit me to state instances when the Commission should have acted but it didn’t.
Having investigated employment practices at GECOM and based on its findings, the Commission, despite calls by a few Commissioners, never recommended the reinstatement of Mr. Vishnu Persaud as the DCEO despite that he was the most qualified candidate and that he was the first candidate in the history of GECOM who attained the highest score but not appointed.
As a result of the successfully passed December 21, 2018, NCM and with Parliament not agreeing to an extension of the constitutional 90-day timeframe, the elections were held a year after they were constitutionally due. While court cases ensued, the Commission in a September 18, 2019 press release, urged constitutional adherence and a swift resolution to the then political impasse; that was 9 months after the NCM; 6 months after the constitutional due date for the elections. Before that press release, it was felt by some Commissioners that the Commission cannot tell GECOM what to do. While that may be so, nothing in my view prevented the Commission before September 18, 2019 from calling for said constitutional adherence and to hold elections within the constitutionally stipulated 90-day timeframe taking into consideration the impact on race relations.
The initial draft of that September 18, 2019, press release stated, “The Commission also respects the independence of GECOM as safeguarded in the constitution. However, it believes that any deviation from constitutional mandated processes could create an environment that potentially impinges on confidence and impartiality. In view of the final ruling and consequential orders of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in June this year, the Commission is cognizant of the constitutional timeframe for holding elections catering for the circumstances at hand. It is cognizant that timeframe which should have been adhered to as per our constitution, would regrettably not be met thereby creating an opportunity for the belief of democratic regression”. That was edited to read, “The Commission urges patience as GECOM executes its mandate to arrive at a date for the elections”. In the context of what transpired in the aftermath the edited statement was redundant.
The Commission, having observed the voting process and the counting of votes on March 02, at some polling booths in parts of the country, issued a statement on March 06, 2020 pointing out those processes to be free, fair and transparent. It also urged GECOM to safeguard the integrity of the elections by ensuring that the verification and tabulation process with regard to Region 4, as reflected in The Representation of the People Act, is followed, and that transparency is foremost. While the Commission subsequently observed the verification and tabulation of Statements of Poll (SOP) for Region 4, it did not pronounce on acts which were revealed and deemed unconstitutional and which further exacerbated discontent.
CARICOM recognized the Commission as an important stakeholder as evident from the meeting with its then Chairperson and the Chairman of the Commission. The Commission, birthed out of political gridlock, did not make any public statement on the actual findings of the recount or submitted a final report of its observations. In fact, mention of CARICOM’s role as a stakeholder was edited out from a press release.
All Observer groups and the local court in March, declared the verification process of Region 4 SOPs as fraudulent and unlawful. All who observed the recount declared it fair and transparent. I truly believe that the Commission missed opportunities to meaningfully intervene over time in the interest of the nation.
The Commission also did not heed the advice of its Legal Officer to summon leaders of the previous government and others involved, to denounce statements made during the violence at West Coast Berbice following the heinous killings of the Henry cousins. Time passed and escalation of tension, were the reasons offered for not heeding the legal officer’s advice. In addition, despite strong recommendations from the legal officer, the Commission chose to take a vote to dispatch a letter to current APNU/AFC Member of Parliament, Sherod Duncan, to note its concerns over comments he made on a social media programme. Such process was routine for others. Why the need for a vote on him? Currently, the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit, in his analysis on February 18, 2021, stated that Mr. Duncan, in a subsequent programme, violated the Racial Hostility Act and the Representation of the People Act since the comment has the potential excite ill-will and foster hatred based on race. No action has been taken thus far. Leader of the Liberty and Justice Party, Lenox Shuman, was immediately summoned to answer for comments he made on a public programme. I trust that the inference is not ambiguous.
Respectfully,
Neaz Subhan
Commissioner
Ethnic Relations Commission
