PERMIT me to refer to Mark Da Costa’s letter in the Stabroek News of Thursday November 7, 2013, under the caption: “Notwithstanding the Amerindian act of 2006, Govt’s paternalistic, patronising treatment of the indigenous peoples is unrestrained.” 

I wish to state the following in relation to this letter:

1. Guyana’s first peoples, the indigenous peoples are currently enjoying their fundamental rights and their right to self-determination under the Amerindian Act 2006. Any person claiming that this is not so is simply being a mischief maker and a carrier of misleading information. Da Costa is such a person and an ignoramus at that.
2. Is Mark Da Costa an indigenous person? If he is, then his European ancestry as well played a role in the exploitation of indigenous peoples some 200 years before independence, since “Da Costa” is a European surname. So Guyana’s indigenous peoples do not need “Johnny– come-lately Europeans” like Mark da Costa to mislead them about their rights.
3. Da Costa claims in his letter that “indigenous Guyanese do not need their identity certified by the Minister of Amerindian Affairs who represents the state of Guyana”. This is absolutely misleading, since no section of the Amerindian Act 2006 provides this power to the minister. Da Costa was apparently reading the old Amerindian chapter 29:01 instead of the new Amerindian Act 2006.But this is disgraceful on the part of Da Costa who merely wants to score cheap political points on the status quo of Guyana’s indigenous peoples which he has failed to score.
4. The Amerindian Act 2006 is not “Melinda Janki’s laws”, neither is it a “tool of oppression and control” as ridiculously claimed by Da Costa in his letter. Janki was one of two legal advisers who drafted the Amerindian Act 2006, based upon the recommendations made by the indigenous communities of Guyana during the three years of intensive consultations for a new Amerindian Act. So the provisions contained in the Amerindian Act 2006 are the wishes of Guyana’s indigenous peoples and not Melinda Janki. Further, Guyana’s indigenous peoples would never have recommended an Amerindian act to be a tool for their “oppression and control.” Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) consultations were credible, transparent and inclusive. The majority of the Amerindian communities in Guyana fully support Guyana’s LCDS. At the National Toshaos Council (NTC) conferences all resolutions relating to Guyana’s LCDS were passed by the Toshaos since the launch of the strategy in June 2009. So the matter of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a non-issue. The few Toshaos who did not support the resolutions did so on the basis of the political opposition.
5. Da costa said in his letter that “Ms Janki acknowledges that indigenous Guyanese have no rights to minerals on their titled lands.” Da Costa is lying on Ms. Janki here. What Ms. Janki might have said is that no Guyanese and non-Guyanese can claim ownership of minerals, since all minerals are the absolute property of the state (sections 6&9 of the mining act). But while indigenous Guyanese do not have the right of mineral ownership, they have the right to the minerals through mining activities on their village lands which they are currently doing. In fact, section 48 of the Amerindian Act 2006 provides Amerindian villages with the power to manage minerals found in their village lands and to give permission if the village consents to any miner who wants to conduct mining activities on village lands in return for a tribute of at least 7% of the value of any minerals obtained from village lands (section 51(1) of Am. Act 2006). Some villages however have bargained for a tribute of more than 7% which is permitted based on the “at least” phase.
6. Twenty per cent of the royalties from mining activities is transferred to the Amerindian Development Fund by the GGMC. This fund, which is well managed and accounted for is used by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs for Amerindian community development and to provide other forms of assistance. Da costa in his letter said that the fund is not properly accounted for by the Government. Can Da costa provide solid evidence for his claims?
7. But Da costa quite rightly said, “Who feels it knows”. Da costa and his ilk are currently feeling the hurt when over 170 toshaos bluntly ignored their political protest while the NTC conference sessions were in progress last month. The toshaos showed Dacosta and his APA that they were strong and capable enough to represent themselves before the President of Guyana and his Government ministers and that the APA’s political Protest was a waste of time and ended up in miserable failure.
8. Finally Mr editor, Da Costa’s letter in the Stabroek News is a reflection of a person that has an identity problem and worst of all, it is contaminated with lies wickedly designed to mislead the reading public about the situation of Guyana’s indigenous peoples.
9. Da Costa urgently needs a psycho-analysis.

PETER PERSAUD