Dear Editor,
SN of Tuesday March 16, 2021 contained an important Editorial that related to the constitutional rights of individuals, and particularly public servants, against the backdrop of the devastating range of terminations, the latter consequent upon regime change. In the process, the Editorial would have incited some readers to reflect on the fundamental rights and freedoms the Constitution of Guyana provides for its citizens. There are twelve (138-149) which deal with issues of ‘Protection’, including (149) – “Protection from discrimination on the grounds of race etc.”
Then there are five ‘Rights’, three of which more arguably relate to the thrust of the Editorial:
Article 149 A – Right to Work, Article 149 B – Right to pension and gratuity, and Article 149 C – Right to participate in decision making process of the State. Many would have protested before about the variety of wounds inflicted on the careers, and indeed lives, of too many professionals, and their families, albeit by decision-makers who appear to be unaware of the specific contents of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the deficit would appear to have been compounded by the indifference (or ignorance) of individuals and organisations who respectively could make legal and/or formal protest. The latter include unions, who must subconsciously wonder what the reaction would be if staff of that Ministry would be removed from their Labour.
To whom in this hostile environment must Dr. Homenauth, and other bereaved colleagues, turn? And while he cannot seek ‘protection from discrimination on the grounds of race’, he certainly has a more fundamental case in his ‘Right to Work’, which incidentally reads very briefly as follows: “No person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her right to work, that is to say, the right to free choice of employment”. And while there is some dispute about the good doctor being offered a choice, there is certainly no question that none of his earlier colleagues was allowed the same, since in any case the evidence would appear to suggest that they fall within Article 149, Paras (1) and (2) of which reads as follows:
“149. (1) Subject to the provisions of this article – (a) no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect; and (b) no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.
149. (2) In this article the expression ‘discriminatory’ means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their or their parents’ or guardians’ respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, creed, age, disability, marital status, sex, gender, language, birth, social class, pregnancy, religion, conscience, belief or culture whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which other persons of the same or another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not afforded to other persons of the same or another such description.” Who was it that said that ‘ignorance is bliss’?
Sincerely,
E.B. John
