I HAVE always offered the theory in my columns that although Guyana has a small population and is relatively unknown throughout the world, there are oddities, aberrations, social ugliness, barefaced hypocrisies that are hardly replicated elsewhere on Planet Earth.
You may find one of these negatives listed above in perhaps all countries, but you won’t find the entire ensemble as we see and feel in Guyana. Let me offer you two examples of moral nastiness that do not exist in another country, before discussing the main reason for this column – the elections court case currently before the acting Chief Magistrate.
This country has a civil society organisation born in 1979. Its name is the Guyana Human Rights Association. Please note this body carries two words emblazoned on its visage – human rights. This entity failed to pronounce on five months of attempts in Guyana between March 2020 and July 2020 to deny more than a 100,000 (hundred thousand) (actually 115,000) citizens their right to have their votes counted.
No organisation that carries those two words – human rights – has a right to be tolerated in a 21st-century society if it ignores five months of dedicated action to tamper with the legitimate results of a national election.
I ask every reader of this page to tell me which country has a human rights entity and that organisation refused to intervene and lend its voice to the international chorus that condemned 5 months of electoral fraud in this country.
This country has another civil society actor with the word “transparency” in its name. This actor is Transparency International – Guyana Chapter. This grouping should have stepped into the arena of criticism of what was taking place with the 2020 general and regional elections.
From the morning of Tuesday, March 2, 2020, there was nothing more opposite to transparency in the tabulation of the election results for Region Four. From that Tuesday morning, all aspects of transparency in the national election in Guyana in 2020 were deliberately dissolved.
Yet in those five months, this country had a Transparency Institute. And it became atrociously silent and malignantly invisible. I ask readers to tell me honestly if such a nasty, hypocritical organisation could be found in another country. After 380 words, I have come to the occurrence of transparent hypocrisy and hypocritical transparency.
One of the recurring themes of all opposition parties and all anti-government civil society groupings and the two private newspapers – Kaieteur News and Stabroek News – is that the Guyana Government lacks transparency in the making of policies and employment practices and is insensitive to such an accusation.
If you are a national political actor who denounces opaque behaviour by the state, then by logic, morality and decency, your behaviour has to be transparent. The electoral fraud trial is continuing before the Chief Magistrate. The magistrate made the decision for the court to visit the Ashmin Building, where the tabulation for Region Four took place. The question of an invitation to the media came up.
The prosecution gave its permission for the media to accompany the delegations. The prosecution indicated that since it is a public trial, the media should cover the Ashmin visit. The defence objected. What has gone berserk in this situation, you will never find in another country. It is in the defence’s interest to push prosecutors for the opening of all windows so ventilation can ensue.
It is in the interest of the defence to ensure full transparency is on show because the traditional accusation is that the state always has things to hide. Both defence attorneys are closely associated with the opposition, with one of them, Nigel Hughes, being the leader of an opposition party, the AFC.
There aren’t words to describe this hypocrisy of transparency and transparent hypocrisy. You have been besieging Guyanese since the Ali presidency was born in August 2020, as it does not practise transparency and when it is your turn to become transparent, you prevent it from blooming.
What advantage does the prosecutor have if the media are excluded? The answer is none, because you have an independent arbiter, the magistrate and you have two opposition defence lawyers who will object to anything being hidden and ask the magistrate to intervene. But more importantly, it is to the advantage of the defence if the media were allowed in because, in reporting, you achieve transparency.
There are two private newspapers that are in permanent anger with the government. Why would they hide what comes out of the visit in the Ashmin Building and they will report attempts by the prosecution to hide things. I end with a caution: look carefully at this manifestation of hypocrisy and think carefully about how you vote.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.