Dear Editor,
THE questioning of the Guyana representative by UN Human Rights Portuguese committee member José Manuel Santos Pais, during which the UN Human Rights raised issues related to the Judiciary and their independence, demonstrates once more that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
On paper Pais certainly makes valid, logical points. One would think that the system allows the President to appoint judges and part-time judges with the advice of the JSC, while this body appoints other legal officers which would lead to a government favouring bias. However, as Minister Teixeira pointed out in her answer, the proof of judicial independence is in the proverbial pudding, i.e. in the actual decisions handed down by the courts over the years.
It is here that Mr. Pais would have benefitted from any modicum of research, for the Guyana Judiciary has demonstrated independence of thought and action; good, bad, and, outré decisions have gone for and against governments (PPP and APNU+AFC).
So independent is our Judiciary – it often in my opinion, cross the boundaries of their jurisdiction and venture into affairs of independent government agencies and the executive – that it was heartening recently to see Justice Sandil Kissoon explain to attorney Darren Wade that reliefs he was seeking for the Guyana Teachers’ Union were beyond the reach of the court. Had Mr. Pais been diligent he would have seen our Judiciary perform with distinction (with a few exceptions) during our major constitutional crisis 2018-2020 when David Granger refused to accept his government had fallen to a vote of confidence.
It boggles the mind when one thinks that a well-funded entity such as the UNCHR has not done due diligence before questioning a country on something as important as its human rights actions and that the US representative parroted nonsense that 90 per cent of mass media was owned by Indo-Guyanese and therefore friendly to the PPP administration. Someone should introduce Mr. Helfer to the internet and allow him a gander at the two Indo-Guyanese owned newspapers and then ask him if he wants that statement to remain on his record, for it would redefine the meaning of the word ‘friendly’. At this point, I am waiting to hear which UNCHR member will ask about the ‘Russians’ who hacked a pencil and paper election with a supercomputer, for it is clear who the sources are for the information that forms the basis of these questions.
To return to the Judiciary, quite often it is the Caribbean Court of Justice (our apex court) that has to wade through the decisions and provide clarity; one can never forget that our Chancellor (ag) decided that 33 was not the majority of 65, and yet Mr.Pais wonders why there has been no confirmation of her position… an exposure of Pais’ ‘little knowledge’ of Guyanese affairs and the slipshod work of the staff of the UNCHR.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
