Another ERC Commissioner speaks up
DEAR EDITOR,
Kaieteur News – Given what is unfolding in the public domain, I feel compelled to offer a response as I did when I disconnected myself from an apology issued by the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) to the Member of Parliament, Catherine Hughes.
On several occasions, I have argued that the Commission must be impartial, consistent and timely in its actions and, in accordance with its mandate, should have meaningfully intervened in terms of the political constraint between 2018-2020. On those occasions, I was firm that the good work done through messages for racial healing and numerous interactions with stakeholders across the country would be overshadowed by what appears to be a sense of partyism.
Unfortunately, in my view, the Commission failed to offer effective and definitive responses and take action when it should be on election issues before and after March 02, 2020. It is no secret that the Commission is criticized ‘ n for not responding to aspects of what happened especially during the five-month period following those elections.
Someone may question why my response now, its relevance and the timing. Both, in my view, allow for clarification. I spoke internally in the expectation that the Commission as a whole would respond in the manner expected and in accordance with its mandate. Although support was found in a few, in the end, most were overwhelming. In retrospect, maybe I should have gone public long before.
I have been consistent in stating internally that any distress or actions by anyone leading to disharmony must be of concern to the Commission. I remained firm that while ethnic-related debates are the main thrust of the Commission’s mandate, they are not separate from dissatisfaction arising from political developments especially given the historical impact of elections here.
Others argued that only issues based on ethnic interaction fall within the Commission’s mandate. I held my view that the Commission itself was birthed out of political disharmony with the sole intention of trying to prevent the same. In the end, the Commission agreed and wrote some political Parties to draw attention and caution on the use of language that was not necessarily based on racial interaction during the 2020 election campaign and which language was considered undesirable and nonsensical. benefit in promoting harmony. Some, however, were adamant that no further intervention was required during the period of electoral distress. The race violation debate and the negative impact on integrity were cited as major reasons. The reality now is that integrity appears to have been lost as a result of inaction.
The difference of opinion led to many lively exchanges on how the Commission should deal with election issues. In almost all cases, my views and suggestions for action were in the minority. On several occasions, I documented my concerns and even submitted a proposal to the Commission to officially state its position on the role of the CARICOM second team and recount. This became necessary as many tended not to acknowledge CARICOM’s involvement and the actual recount and its findings. I still believe some have not.
When the proposal came to debate, the findings of the recounts had already been published and Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali as President. The proposal was rendered irrelevant by the majority and in effect meant that the Commission’s official position on both of these issues was not documented. I even questioned the logic of the Commission sending a congratulatory message to President Ali when there appeared to be no official recognition of the process that led to his swearing-in.
I must nevertheless link previous events to show what appeared to be a sense of mindfulness in order to avoid any meaningful statement on political developments, which most, apparently, do not offend the government at the time.
He assured a Commissioner who believed that any intervention suggested by the Commission to the electoral impasse would have a negative impact on integrity, ensuring that the word “rig” was removed from a letter recently sent to President Ali, was instrumental in changing the context of a press release, referred to later in this letter and vocal about the need to apologize to Mrs. Hughes.
I disagreed that fundamental issues, which led to the genesis of political turmoil, were considered outside the Commission’s mandate. I believe that in any attempt to resolve situations or conflicts, the genesis and confrontation of parties related to the facts must be identified. If not, it could be considered avoiding the real issue with potential impact on the creditor’s credibility.
I also drew attention from the Commission’s point of view; it is not about who wins, but about adherence to constitutional procedures in deriving the winner. Constitutional wrongdoing is an opposition to democracy and creates an enabling environment for discontent. If the Commission could have pronounced, as it did, on some language used during that campaign, why then could it not pronounce on constitutional wrongdoing that resulted in the exacerbation of racial tension. That was my concern.
That, in my view, makes it imperative for the Commission not to stand, or appear to be standing, on the sidelines on certain political developments that prevent disharmony. Although the Commission was expected to be impartial, I argued that it had to take sides; the side of what’s right – the Guyana side. An objective examination of related jobs taken could reveal an apparent hesitation to call a “spade a spade”. Same for constitutional wrongdoing.
Point “Q” of the Commission’s constitutional mandate speaks to “identifying and analyzing factors that prevent the attainment of harmonious relations between ethnic groups … and to make recommendations”. Political developments leading to dissatisfaction are important historical factors. The period after March 02, 2020, the election period, was no different and, in my view, should not have been overlooked in the context of the Commission’s role in promoting harmony.
Allow me to identify cases where the Commission should have acted but did not.
1. After researching employment practices at GECOM and from its own findings, the Commission, despite calls from a few Commissioners, never recommended the replacement of Mr Vishnu Persaud as the DCEO despite his findings that he was the largest candidate qualified and was the first candidate in GECOM history who scored the highest but not appointed.
2. As a result of the December 21, 2018, NCM passed successfully and with the Senate not agreeing to extend the 90-day constitutional schedule, the elections were held a year after they were constitutionally due. While court proceedings occurred, the Commission in a Press Release of September 18, 2019, urged constitutional adherence and speedy resolution to the political turmoil at the time; that was nine months after the NCM; six months after the constitutional due date for the elections. Prior to that Press Release, some Commissioners felt that the Commission could not tell GECOM what to do. While that may be, nothing in my view prevented the Commission before September 18, 2019, as disquiet grew, calling for the said constitutional adherence to the conduct of elections within the 90-day timeframe set out in constitutional considering the effect. on race relations.
3. The initial draft of that Press Release on September 18, 2019 stated, “The Commission also respects the independence of GECOM as protected in the constitution. However, it believes that any deviation from compulsory constitutional processes could create an environment that could potentially affect confidence and impartiality. Given the final judgment and consequential orders of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in June this year, the Commission is aware of the constitutional timetable for holding elections that cater for the circumstances involved. It is aware that, unfortunately, it would not meet the timetable that should have been adhered to in accordance with our constitution, thus creating an opportunity to believe democratic regression ”. That meant reading, “The Commission urges patience as GECOM implements its mandate to reach the election date”. Patience is necessary, though necessary, but in the context referenced for adhering to the constitutional election schedule, considering the court, it may be interpreted as turning a blind eye to constitutional wrongdoing resulting from democratic regression , and in turn, a disturbance of peace. In that context, I felt that calling for the maintenance of democracy is not divorced from the Commission’s general mandate.
4. After observing the voting process and counting of votes on March 02, in some Polling Places in some parts of the country, the Commission issued a statement on March 06, 2020 highlighting those processes to be free, fair and equitable. and transparent. He also urged GECOM to protect the integrity of the elections by ensuring that the verification and tabulation process in relation to Region Four as reflected in the Representation of the People Act, is followed, with transparency above all. Although the Commission observed verification and tabulation of Statements of Vote (SOP) for Region Four, it did not pronounce acts that were disclosed and deemed unconstitutional and which further aggravated dissatisfaction.
5. CARICOM recognized the Commission as an important stakeholder as evidenced by the meeting with its then Chair and Commission Chair. The Commission, bound out of political lockdown, made no public statement on the actual findings of the recount nor presented a final report of its observations. In fact, mention was made of CARICOM’s role as a stakeholder of a Press Release.
All Observer groups and the local court announced in March that the verification process of District Four SOPs was fraudulent and illegal. Everyone who observed the recount announced that it was fair and transparent.
I truly believe that the Commission has missed opportunities to intervene meaningfully over time for the benefit of the nation. Unfortunately, at that time, one Commissioner brainstormed the idea that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was not the highest and final means of legal recourse to our country. That Commissioner recently pointed out that misinformation contributed to that conclusion.
I believe that, as a Commission, we could not continue to ignore the genesis of political turmoil and point out that the public, not forgetting any appearance of such avoidance, had not made them see the Commission selectively, inconsistent, unwilling or even incapable of dealing with arguments arising from political developments.
I said that pressure in the Commission’s words and with the ongoing evasion appeared during his tenure to identify factors that hinder the achievement of agreed relations between the ethnic groups in terms of the NCM and the elections, I asked, what would has been the Commission’s Commission. situation if the PPP / C had been in government and the said scenario played out in 2018.
That aside, the Commission did not heed the advice of its Legal Officer to summon former government leaders and others involved, to deny statements made during the violence in the West Coast Berbice following the heinous murders of Henry’s cousins. Time went by and tension increased, and reasons were given for not listening to the Legal Officer’s advice.
In addition, despite strong recommendations from the Legal Officer, the Commission chose to vote to send a letter to APNU + AFC’s current Member of Parliament, Sherod Duncan, expressing his concerns about comments he made on a social media program. Such a process was normal for others. Why the need for a vote on it? At present, the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit noted in his analysis of February 18, 2021 that, in a subsequent program, Mr. Duncan had violated the Racial Hostility Act and the Representation of the People Act as the comment had the potential to excite poor will and nurture of race-based hatred. No action has been taken to date. The Leader of the Freedom and Justice Party, Mr Lennox Shuman, was immediately summoned to answer for comments he made on a public program.
I trust that the conclusion is not ambiguous.
Respectfully,
Neaz Subhan
Commissioner