Three days ago Prime Minister Mark Phillips issued a statement in which he spoke of his “profound disappointment” that Deputy Speaker Lenox Shuman had accused the government of not consulting the Indigenous Peoples on significant issues. Mr Shuman’s criticism had come in the form of a letter published in this newspaper on Monday, when he added his voice to the denunciations of the decision to reopen mining at Marudi Mountain without consulting the South Rupununi Development Council. This body represents the Indigenous people of the surrounding area, mostly Wapichan, who will be affected by the resumption of mining in Marudi and Mazoa, and who will have to live with the environmental consequences of the depredations long after the mountains have been mined out.
The Prime Minister asserted that Mr Shuman was “unfairly and erroneously” suggesting that the PPP/C government was not open to dialogue with the Indigenous people in respect of their development, and referred to a meeting the two had had in his office on October 25. During this encounter, he maintained they had “cordially” discussed various issues relating to Indigenous people’s development and the government’s approach to bridging the gap in the quality of life between the hinterland and the coastland.
Apart from a reference to a Facebook comment Mr Shuman had posted, which the Prime Minister interpreted as validating the government’s efforts vis-à-vis consultation, he went on to describe it as an “enigma” that now the Deputy Speaker was adopting a position which contradicted the facts. Even in his letter, said the Prime Minister, Mr Shuman had admitted to being consulted on numerous occasions and his suggestions considered. As was observed in our report, it has been noted by commentators that there was nothing in Mr Shuman’s Facebook post that stated the government had adequately consulted with the Indigenous people.
As it was, much of Mr Shuman’s letter had concerned the case of the Marudi Mountain mining permit, which had not been granted at the time Brigadier Phillips met Mr Shuman, and to which he made no specific reference. In his response to the Prime Minister in our letter column yesterday, the Deputy Speaker reminded him of his original list of complaints, namely, non-inclusion, inequitable development and non-consultation with Indigenous peoples. In addition, he said the Brigadier at the meeting had committed to finding a way to establish a channel for dialogue which has not eventuated as yet.
The traditional habit of governments in this country is that if a contentious matter is left lying long enough, people will forget about it and it will just evaporate in the tropical air. But not the case of Marudi Mountain, nor, by extension, the larger matter of consultation. Various Indigenous activists have raised their voices in opposition to the Marudi mining agreement, and like Mr Shuman are calling for it to be rescinded and for the Indigenous communities to be consulted in a real sense.
Governor and Rights Coordinator Laura George, of the Amerindian Peoples’ Association, made reference to the 2016 agreement about mining in the Marudi which had wide stakeholder participation, including that of the South Rupununi District Council, but whose recommendations had not been implemented. It was for this reason Natural Resources Minister Vickram Bharrat decided a new agreement was required, but not, it would appear, new consultations involving everyone who had previously participated.
What the government called a ‘consultation’ with the village of Aishalton was a misnomer, it seems. Ms George said that while a team of ministers and government officials had visited the village to speak with community leaders about the agreement, it represented “an attempt at an ambush of the Indigenous Peoples and the South Rupununi District Council.”
Mr Kid James, of the South Rupununi District Council, which initially alerted the public to the agreement, said that they are yet to receive a copy. Expanding on what Ms George had said, he related how community leaders only had half an hour to ask questions at the meeting, as opposed to government ministers, who spoke for over an hour.
Furthermore, he said that Toshao Michael Thomas had only been informed of the meeting the day before. “A regional official visited some communities and told residents to say they support the mining in Marudi and to say that 90% of our people mine in Marudi, when we know that is not true. Agents of the regional official were walking around our villages in the night to have documents signed,” he claimed. It is a damning accusation.
He added that farmers were already experiencing the negative impact of mining, as the barriers of a bridge which had been built recently had been destroyed so trucks could cross it.
Former Toshao of Aishalton Tony James also expressed his concerns in a letter to this newspaper last Saturday, deploring the continued violation of Indigenous rights in relation to free prior informed consent, and the contravention of protections in the Constitution as well as the rights set out in international conventions.
As mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister did not address himself to the matter of Marudi specifically, but spoke in general terms about consultation with the Indigenous peoples without providing specific examples except in the case of Mr Shuman. The question is whether Marudi is an isolated example, or whether it is symptomatic of a larger problem. Many people, and not just activists, think the latter. And so does Mr Shuman, who provided some condemnatory perceptions and incriminating examples.
“It is my informed view that the Government of Guyana under the People’s Progressive Party has zero inclination to meaningfully consult the Indigenous Peoples on any matter. It is also my informed view that they intend to throw money at the problems the Indigenous Peoples face instead of genuinely trying to find comprehensive solutions to addressing them. By addressing the issues comprehensively, it empowers Indigenous Peoples which poses a problem to the PPP… ” he said.
The habit of all governments to woo the Indigenous vote with outboard engines and the like, particularly at election time, is well known, as are the allegations that conformity is rewarded and opposition penalised. But Mr Shuman cited the interesting example of the Law Reform Commission. Following the distribution of the first draft of the Law Reform Commission (Amendment) Bill, he had raised an objection with the Attorney General on the grounds that Indigenous people were not represented, because the Indigenous Peoples Commission was the body named to nominate an Indigenous candidate. He recommended it be replaced by the National Toshaos Council. After about five months, this was eventually taken on board, but when the NTC nominated their candidate the person was removed from the list, and a “more pliable candidate of non-indigenous persuasion” was substituted. This is control by a different route.
Mr Colin Klautky, Deputy Vice Chairman of the Guyana Organisation of Indigenous Peoples told this newspaper that the Marudi deal was a sign that “Columbusism” was “alive and kicking.” He referred to the habit of governments over the years of using the “talk down” approach when persuading indigenous communities that projects are in their interest. However, he said, “inclusivity” is much more important now. “It has always been about ‘pro-mises, promises, promises’ but never listening to what the people have to say and how they will be affected.”
And that is the point. To truly include people, or have meaningful consultations, they must be listened to with an open mind and with a preparedness to change proposals. There is no point in the government talking to members of a community in theoretically consultative mode, if everything they say is to be ignored afterwards. The administration is not a parent who believes that they always know best for their children. The people’s views – those of the Indigenous citizens as well as others – deserve as much rational consideration as those of officials. The government needs to go back to the drawing board where the mining deal on Marudi is concerned.
