Dear Editor,

I RECENTLY had to respond to a presentation made by Vincent Alexander at a pre-session for civil society relating to Guyana’s Universal Periodic Review to be conducted by the UN Human Rights Council in May.

Mr Alexander listed a number of human rights issues in Guyana, all of which were saturated with fabrications and barefaced lies. Because of space, my column limited response to only a few of those lies.

Since then, Alexander’s response has been widely published in several newspapers. He essentially repeated those same lies. I have, therefore, no option but to reiterate that his presentation in Geneva was a total, barefaced compendium of lies and more lies.

Let me address up front the “apartheid” issue because most of what he said was in support of this proposition. In his widely published response, Alexander denied deeming Guyana an “apartheid” state, which he concedes others have done, with justification. He confessed he only stated that Guyana is “akin” to an apartheid state. Need I say more? His confession is self-evidentiary.

Guyana is not an “apartheid” state, nor is it ’”akin” to an “apartheid” state. Alexander and several like him have repeatedly made false assertions that Guyana is an “apartheid” state or “akin” to an apartheid state. He used both terms “apartheid” and “akin to an apartheid” state in his presentation in Geneva. Whichever way – “apartheid” or “akin to an apartheid” state – I unequivocally reject his proposition.

Whether it is “apartheid” or “akin to an apartheid” state, he was portraying a false narrative based on baldfaced, barefaced, ugly lies. There are no “ands, ifs or buts” about it.

While not naming Mocha-Arcadia in his presentation, he made a blanket statement that Afro-Guyanese were forcefully removed from lands they have occupied. As an example, Alexander spoke of Afro-Guyanese residents in one community whose properties were forcefully dismantled from land which they had occupied for more than 30-years. Alexander’s story was that the government’s pretext was constructing a highway and the land was in the way. He said that there is no highway ever planned or has been constructed where the land was located. He further alleged that the government gave others, clearly giving the impression that others of a different ethnic descent were given land in the same area.

He never once mentioned that the specific land he was referring to was land on which the residents had been squatting. He also never mentioned that the residents were given notice as far back as 2008, that the government offered the relevant residents other reasonable, transported land at no cost for relocation and offered financial compensation far above the appraised value for any property they had on the land, that most of the residents accepted the government’s offer and that only a small group, under pressure from the PNC and other groups closely linked to the PNC, refused to negotiate unless the government started the negotiation accepting that the small group must be given land where they chose and $US1M ($G200M) each.

Both what Alexander spoke of and the information he deliberately omitted were either baldfaced, barefaced, ugly lies or an attempt to give a narrative that fall into the category of lies and more lies. The highway which he claimed while in Geneva was never constructed is one that he himself has driven on, I am certain, many times. The Heroes’ Highway is a spanking, beautiful new highway that thousands have been driving on.

I am grateful that in his letter he confessed that the road has actually been completed, therefore, rendering his “pretext” argument non-existent. But he insists still that the specific lands were never in the way of the highway. The reserve land on the sides of the highway is not occupied by other people who Alexander alleged were given land by the government. Both his allegations that no highway was constructed in the area where the specific lands are located and that others were given land in the same area are barefaced, ugly lies.

The relevant land became a matter that was addressed by the judiciary and the court ruled that the residents were squatting and, therefore, had no legal right. The court not only dismissed the demand from the residents on the basis that they were squatting, but ordered them to pay G$2 million each. Since then, the leader of the PNC asserted they gave “good advice” to the residents. But the residents today have been abandoned by Mr Alexander’s party and any of those associated with the “good advice.” It is the president and the government that have offered the same remedies that the vast majority of the residents had previously agreed to and accepted.

One of the many false allegations made in Geneva by Mr Alexander was that promotion in the Public Service is not “merit-based,” but was conducted with “presidential instructions.” He made no mention that Guyana’s constitution provides for various service commissions, such as the Public Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission, the Judicial Service Commission and the Police Service Commission. In supporting his contention that “merit-based” promotion has been abandoned in Guyana, he cited the example of police officers being prosecuted for crimes as a pretext not to promote them.

I cited in my column that I know of only one example of a police officer who was charged, together with his wife, with a number of criminal charges involved with bank deposits of $800 million. I mentioned that this officer was promoted to assistant police commissioner long before he was charged. He never made clear that he was referring only to the period when Paul Slowe was the Chair of the Police Service Commission. In any case, the matter I was addressing involved two things he stated in Geneva – first, that promotions were not “merit-based” and, second, that the government was prosecuting police officers as a pretext not to promote them.

He raised the issue of recent police promotions by the Police Service Commission, something that happened after my column was published. But his observation about the ethnic breakdown of the senior officers’ promotions is instructive. He clearly insinuated the promotions reflected ethnic discrimination. By his own observation, his proposition is that these officers were not promoted on the basis of merit.

He used my figures which show that the vast majority of persons employed in the military, police or Public Service are Afro-Guyanese to justify why being of another ethnic group is evidence that a person was not promoted based on merit. This is racist and divisive talk. I reject it.
I totally reject Alexander’s assertion that the hierarchy in any of the services – police, army, the Public Service, teaching and the judiciary – are “now disproportionately, and in some instances, absolutely dominated by Indo-Guyanese.” This is another of his ugly fabrications and baldfaced lies.

In terms of Afro-Guyanese being engaged in businesses and as contractors, there have never been more Afro-Guyanese-owned businesses, more Afro-Guyanese contractors ever in Guyana. Here is a truth that Alexander and his ilk cannot escape. In 2025, the number of Afro-Guyanese who have started businesses, have access to contracts, house lots, scholarships, etc. are far, far more than in 2020 or ever before. There is another fact that Alexander and his ilk has to deal with – the number of big Afro-Guyanese contractors today exceed by far what existed at any other time in our history. In addition, not a single new Afro-Guyanese contractor emerged between 2015 and 2020 when his party was in government.

I will address, at another time, other matters about which Mr Alexander is guilty of presenting falsehoods during his presentation in Geneva. For now, I posit that Alexander has further shown that he is willing to use false narratives to achieve the objective of sowing ethnic division in our country. I completely and unequivocally reject his proposition that Guyana is an “apartheid” state or is “akin to an apartheid” state.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Leslei Ramsammy