I REFER to a Stabroek News headline in its issue of Saturday March 23rd, 2013 under the caption: “UN Committee writes Gov’t over Mining on Amerindian Land.”
Kindly permit me to state the following:

1. It is not surprising that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) responded to the mischievous, erroneous and misleading letter sent to it by the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA) and the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP).
2. What I like about the UNCERD response is that it exposed the fact that it was blatantly misled or deceived by the APA and FPP.
3. UNCERD, in its response to government, said that it is “Concerned over mining on Titled Land in the Amerindian communities of Isseneru and Kako.” But if so be the case, the UNCERD is therefore concerned that Indigenous Peoples are mining on their own Titled lands, since in both Kako and Isseneru villages, Indigenous Peoples are engaged in mining activities where the free prior and informed consent (FPIC) principle is ignored. UNCERD must know that this principle must not only be applied to Non-Indigenous Peoples and Governments but Indigenous Communities as well. In fact, it is a continued recommendation of the United Nations permanent forum of Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) that Indigenous Communities must report on their implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The question, therefore, are our Indigenous Communities submitting their reports particularly those who, for mere convenience, like to sing the FPIC song?
4. What is Kako’s problem? The Village Council is constantly blocking the Kako river from a miner who is an indigenous individual from getting to her mining property which is not located on Titled Lands, but State Lands, hence the court action against the Kako Village Council by the miner.
5. What is Isseneru’s Problem? The Village Council refused to hold dialogue with a miner for permission to conduct mining on Village Lands, while other non-resident miners are allowed to conduct mining on Village Lands, hence the court action by the miner against the Village Council.
6. The UNCERD, in its response letter, claims that mining concessions are granted on Titled Amerindian Lands. This is a lie. It seems that the UNCERD does not know the difference between a Mining Permit Licence and Concession. I am not aware of any new mining concession granted on titled Amerindian Lands. If UNCERD is using Chinese Landing as an example, that concession came about as a result of signed agreements between the Village Council and the Concession holder about two decades ago. The Chinese Landing Village is located in the Barama River, a tributary of the Waini River of the Barima-Waini Region, Region #1.
7. The UNCERD, in its response letter, said that “as a result of information received, the government, through the Amerindian Act 2006, has denied the Kako and Isseneru Indigenous Communities and decision-making rights concerning the Mining of lands over which those Communities have Title.” This is another blatant lie fed to UNCERD and the other UN Human Rights Bodies by the APA and FPP to merely score cheap political points. Sections 48 & 49 of the Amerindian Act 2006 can prove that I am right.
8. The Amerindian Act 2006 which came about as a result of country-wide consultations in the Amerindian Communities of Guyana embodies self-determination, the FPIC principle and moreso decision-making. This is totally indisputable. I am therefore urging the UNCERD and the other UN Human Rights bodies to apply themselves to the Amerindian Act 2006 for clarifications on the ‘Collective Rights’, the granting of land and the promotion of good governance in the Amerindian villages and communities of Guyana.
9. What the APA and FPP did not tell the UNCERD and other UN Human Rights bodies in their misleading letter, is the involvement of the Village Councils of  Kako and Isseneru in mining which is a clear contravention of section 25 of the Amerindian Act 2006, which borders on a conflict of interest situation.
10. Finally, the UNCERD and the other UN Human Rights bodies must know that the situation of both the Kako and Isseneru communities has absolutely nothing to do with the Amerindian Act 2006. It is more an obvious greed for the mineral ‘Gold’ which the state of Guyana has absolute ownership of.