with Lincoln Lewis

THERE continues to be the trumpet call for change in governance. Change from the violations of laws and principles and the transgression of rights to one where laws are upheld and rights respected as features of everyday governance. Behind this backdrop, and given the PPP’s track record for lawlessness and contempt for the people and their institutions, persons moved to the polls in 2015 in their numbers to register their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

On the ascension of the APNU+AFC to office, a clear message was sent by its leader, President David Granger, that the administration will conduct the nation’s business in accordance with the rule of law and respect for the rights of all. We were assured this administration will govern in the interest of all, and not some.

The trade union community, at a conference at the Critchlow Labour College on January 30th, 1993, came out against the manner in which workers were treated by the new PPP government. We supported the Guyana Public Service Union in its quest to repel what was considered as transgressing of workers’ rights and violations of time-honoured principles and laws.  The opposition, under Desmond Hoyte, called for respect for these tenets as an element of good governance. Twenty-three years later, the country is once again being challenged with the same behaviour.

Change must come, and it must happen now. In the workplace, it matters not whether you are the Chief Executive Officer or the cleaner, in that your rights are secured under a single body of rules governing conditions of service, starting from employment to termination. Inherent in these rules is the right to be heard when accusations are made against you. This is a fundamental right.

In 1992, when the PPP assumed office, a number of government workers were asked to demit office, hounded out, career foreign service officers were recalled or dismissed, some turned up to work only to see that other persons had occupied their desks. This behaviour also carried racial overtones. In the Custom and Excise Department, officers were indicted, placed before the courts, and even though exonerated, they were left to languish rather than be allowed to return to their substantive jobs.

Today the PPP is in opposition and is accusing the APNU+AFC government of engaging in witch-hunting of workers based on their political persuasion and/or race. In order for this claim to be seen as credible and not political grandstanding, it must be supported by evidence, and the PPP is called on to provide this evidence.

In the administration’s embrace of the Green Economy as its model for development, it ought to be recognised that a principal tenet is the respecting of international conventions, charters, laws and human rights. It must be said that the conduct of the business of the state and any of its institutions has to be guided by a body of rules and laws, not how one who has been placed in the position to administer those tenets feels.
In our common law system, one is considered innocent until proven guilty. More so, it is expected that justice will be dispensed at all times in respecting the rights of everyone that is being accused.

There are a few cases in this society where persons who are employed in state institutions are being sent on annual vacation leave, but yet at the same time are being treated as though they are accused and charged for some infraction they have committed.
Wrong is wrong, regardless of who may have done it. In simple administration and industrial relations practice, if it is perceived that one has committed an offence and it is required for an enquiry to take place, that individual is expected to be sent on administrative leave based on his/her level in the organisation.

When one is sent on annual vacation, the services and benefits accrued to the person continue as if that person is on the job. To ask or demand of persons while on annual vacation to return items belonging to the organisation or cease paying attention to anything taking place within that organisation is wrong.

Such activities/benefits are derived through custom and practice, provided that the law is not broken and the policy and time-honoured principles are not undermined.

In some instances, having the privilege to work from and access an institution’s record at home comes with the position held in the organisation. Being entitled to have access to record in a physical space is no different from having access to same in cyber space. Also, vehicles and equipment assigned to that worker may have come as a result of the employee’s benefits package, and while on annual vacation, unless stated otherwise in the contract or policy.

Justice cannot and must not be pursued through unjust processes. This administration needs to guard against such tendency; and more importantly, actions must not be guided by feelings of anyone or group, but only by the rules operating within the confines of the laws, which would ensure respecting the employee’s fundamental rights.

Citizens are not inclined to question the intent to restore law and order, but any process being applied in pursuit of same must not depart from upholding fundamental rights.

This nation needs to guard against a continuation of the PPP modus operandi when that party assumed office in 1992. Members and supporters of this administration need to guard against temptation and action to goad on and support what is wrong. Such behaviour helps the PPP to make the case that 11th May 2015 was not about our desire for change to bring about good governance, but a fight to control the levers of government which they think they are entitled to hold.

In order for citizens to realise the change they invested in, it carries a corresponding responsibility to hold our elected officials and those placed in positions of privilege accountable to manage our affairs consistent with universal principles.