In response to what they say is the welcomed commitment of the government to revising the Amerindian Act of 2006, residents of Lethem have crafted proposals for the consultation process which they are hoping will aid reform of the legislation.
“As Indigenous peoples, we have the right and the responsibility to chart the path of our own development for ourselves and for future generations,” they say in an 11-page document, calling for two-thirds of the committee representatives for the consultations to be indigenous.
That right and responsibility, the residents say, derives from the right to self-determination, which is protected in Article 154A of the Constitution through Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
They say that it is important that those overseeing the revision process “share our lived experience as indigenous peoples and understand how the Amerindian Act falls short in protecting our rights.”
According to the document, “the Amerindian Act revision process should represent an effort by our people and for our people. This means, among other things, that the revision process must be inclusive, participatory, and collective. In addition, it must respect our customary decision making processes.”
The residents have been keen in pointing out also that the consultation must be, “free from manipulation, must provide ample time for our communities to understand and participate in the process, and must ensure that our communities are fully informed at each stage of the process.”
They are calling for training, noting that indigenous communities have expressed that consultations will be both more efficient and effective if some capacity building is carried out ahead of formal consultations designed to elicit recommendations to revise the Act.
These capacity building sessions, the proposal suggests, can be carried out by district councils, indigenous peoples NGOs and CBOs in consultation with village councils, using trained indigenous facilitators.
Such training should focus on the contents of the Amerindian Act, international law standards such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and recommendations coming out of previous initiatives to generate community inputs for revision of the Act.
It is hoped that there will also be a national committee to consider past recommendations – “which were submitted to the Government multiple times, first in 2019 and again in 2022” – the document says, before the consultations. This committee should undertake to conduct discourses in every indigenous community in 2023.
Those recommendations, the proposal says, were prepared following workshops and consultations convened from 2018-2019 to compile their collective recommendations to revise the Amerindian Act and thus, they are an important starting point.
The first round of community consultations should aim to gather input on the needed revisions to the Act, which should be based on community members’ own experiences of current problems with the Act and how communities can be better served by a revised Act in line with international standards and customary norms.
According to the proposal seen by this newspaper, the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (MoAA) is fully onboard and has indicated its intent to visit every village for consultation meetings.
The Lethem residents said that against this background, and in order to expedite the process of revision, the government should train a sufficient number of facilitators identified by the Amerindian villages so that several consultation meetings could take place simultaneously.
They are of the view that consultations should be held at locations determined by each village council, and in communities’ own languages, with simultaneous translation.
Indigenous language interpreters can be arranged through district councils and indigenous NGOs, and should be selected by village and district Councils. Interpreters should be paid for their time by the government through the committee’s budget, the proposal says.
“All consultations should be nonpartisan and free from political interference,” the document adds.
If committee members will not be responsible for facilitating the community consultations, then facilitators must be selected by indigenous members of the committee, based on nominations by village and district councils.
The proposals also state that facilitators must understand the decision-making customs of indigenous peoples, consultation practices, have experience with indigenous issues and, where possible, have local language and interpretation skills. Facilitators must also have training before commencing consultations on relevant laws, rights and procedures, including on: the Amerindian Act of 2006, constitutional rights and obligations, and international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
As it relates to remuneration, the proposal is that facilitators be paid by the government.
The proposal is also being made for communities to have opportunities to make decisions at multiple stages of the revision process, including recommendations for amendments to the Act, providing input on the draft of the revised Act, and expressing approval or disapproval of the draft bill to be introduced in the National Assembly.
The document proposes that “Communities should have the freedom to make decisions in the manner of their choosing, whether through a village general meeting, smaller meetings, home visits, or any other method that comports with our customary practices.”
It then further proposes that once the first round of consulta-tions is complete, a national consultation matrix should be prepared of all recommendations received, and analyzed to identify where there is broad convergence. It says that equally, the analysis should indicate where there are conflicting recommendations on specific revisions to the Act coming from the communities and that these both should be the subject for discussions at the national committee level.
It goes on to note that the consolidated recommendations matrix should be made publicly available, along with a response from the national committee (together with any responses from the MoAA and/or Attorney General where applicable) indicating whether the recommendation is accepted, or if not, why not.
It says where recommendations are not accepted, communities must be given a reasonable opportunity to challenge this decision during the second consultation period; and that the consolidated consultation matrix, and any additional recommendations from the national committee, should form the basis of the drafting of the revised bill.
Against this background, the proposals outline that participation by indigenous representatives and experts in the drafting of the revised Act is an indispensable part of the process, as it is a consultative process involving communities giving their free, prior, and informed consent on the contents of the revised act before it is submitted to Parliament.
Following drafting of the revised Bill, the document says, there must be a process of international expert review to facilitate a neutral and objective review of the draft, to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and to suggest possible incorporation of best practice provisions from indigenous people’s legislation in other countries.
There is also provision for participation in parliamentary hearings in that the national committee should work with the AG’s office and the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance to hold several public hearings on the revision of the Act, allowing for ample presentation of the primary reasons for the proposed reforms, to explain their overall benefit to indigenous peoples and the nation as a whole, and to discuss and explain any sectoral issues of pertinence.
It notes, too, that a process of public testimony at the hearing should be included; and that an opportunity to respond be given, to the extent that that any further changes to the draft bill are made by ministers or the AG, the national committee must be given the opportunity to respond.
Finally, in the event of a dispute in the consultation process, the proposal for resolution is that an independent mediator be selected by the national committee, agreeable to both sides of the dispute, and all parties should agree to cooperate in the mediation process in good faith.
