Guyana Focus
for Guyana's ills
Can a multi-racial party or a combination of fringe parties with a multi-racial agenda lead Guyana to greater prosperity? The answer to this question will vary, depending on who you ask, but the bias will most likely be in favor of a multi-racial party. However, historical experience suggests that power rather than multi-racial governance matters most to the country’s political parties.
Arguably, a multi-racial party is generally perceived to be representing the interests of a broad cross-section
of the population, and particularly the two largest ethnic groups, East Indians and Blacks. Although there has never been a pure single-race party in power, the composition of governments has always comprised one of the two dominant ethnic groups – which has effectively controlled power – with a smattering of racial crossovers or so-called “window-dressings” providing the impression of a multi-racial front.
To put this in perspective, the PPP has a largely East Indian support base whereas the PNC, renamed APNU, has a Black support base. The underlying reason for resorting to a multi-racial party is primarily to attract sufficient votes to secure power – and nothing else.
The truth, however, is that a multi-racial party, whose composition leverages race as its underlying modus operandi does not necessarily have a better chance of ensuring economic prosperity than a single-race party.
At the most, a multi-racial party facilitates greater political inclusiveness which does not necessarily contribute to better governance. And political inclusiveness is directly correlated to the quest for power.
In the struggle for political power, the underlying causes of the economic and social malaise which are typically attributed to the ruling government are quite often overlooked and the focus usually shifts to “race”. However, in as much as the quest for power is driven by racial motivations, it is naïve to assume that a multi-racial solution to governing the country will invoke prosperity.
That’s because the underlying problems in Guyana are not based only on racial orientations but are more or less due to economic mismanagement, corruption, nepotism, weaknesses in the administrative and governance structures, poor strategic planning, a shortage of capital to finance development, and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Together, these problems have inhibited progress, regardless of the government in power. As a result, governments have come in and out of favor, depending on economic conditions, which are inextricably linked to the state of moral, social and economic well-being of the population at large.
When economic conditions are good, the population does not have much to complain about, and consequently, racial tensions lessen.
However, when economic conditions are less than favourable, racial tensions become more pronounced, and the racial hand is dealt to the detriment of the party in power – whether or not the party promotes a multi-racial front. The current APNU administration is a case in point. It has lost favor with the masses in spite of its supposed multi-racial orientation.
In similar vein, when economic conditions, and consequently social conditions are poor, racial tensions escalate. The dislike that develops for any government in power is not necessarily due to the racial composition of the ruling party but more so because of the deterioration of economic and social conditions which can be attributed to the performance of the government.
This is not to say that racial tensions are only linked to poor economic and social conditions, but they have also been the fuel for power seekers. For instance, racial tensions have typically heightened both pre- and post-elections as political parties try to get a hold on power.
In addition, parties in opposition tend to criticize or oppose the decisions – both good and bad - of the governing party, just for the sake of opposing, which is generally linked to the attainment of power, which in turn is driven by racial motivations.
The reality is that whatever party is in power, multi-racial or not, is perceived to be resorting to decisions that are beneficial to its own interests and supporters. Therefore, a multi-racial party is not a panacea for resolving underlying economic issues, though it might lessen political tensions.
With the idea of a multi-racial government gaining traction, the question that begs to be asked is whether a multi-racial party, or any party that can break the PPP and PNC stranglehold, will form a more effective government. The answer is most likely “not a chance in hell” since race has nothing to do with economic performance.
Regardless of which party is in power – whether or not elected on a multi-racial agenda – the racial hand is often dealt to the detriment of supporters of the opposition party.
This puts any party that will rule Guyana following the next general elections in a difficult position since it will have to deal with the task of putting the country on a path to sustainable development – a reality that has more teeth than a paper tiger. Failure to do so will only result in the cyclical pattern of censure, and consequently dissatisfaction among the population.
The ruling party must have the resources and wherewithal to deal with the underperformance of the key productive sectors; the huge debt burden; poverty alleviation; entrenched corruption; the burgeoning drug trade; escalating crime; weak capital formation; and attracting viable foreign investment, among other issues.
There are numerous examples in Guyana where racial alignment to one of the two major political parties, combined with the desire for power, have led to poor economic decisions which have been detrimental to the country as a whole or to a particular race.
For instance, from an economic development perspective, the current government’s good and green agenda would have benefitted enormously from hydropower – one of the cheapest sources of alternative energy. However, the then major multi-racial opposition party opposed implementation of the Amaila Falls project – for purely selfish political reasons. But the same former opposition party – now in power - still has the project on its development agenda.
From a racial perspective, agriculture perhaps provides the best example of one political party in power hurting the country’s development prospects as well as a particular race. The PNC in its early years knowingly slashed budgetary allocations to the agricultural sector in an effort to hurt the East Indian segment of the population which plays a dominant role in agriculture and which is associated with the PPP.
The current government’s stance on agriculture is no different – even though it is interested in developing large scale agriculture. But by shifting agricultural production and budgetary support to non-traditional areas of production, it has intentionally hurt the race that does not support its political ambitions for power.
At the end of the day, though a political party might appear to be multiracial and might not be opposed to the development of the agriculture sector, for instance, it could be subtly opposed to the beneficiaries of the production process in the sector. Such behavior hurts economic development.
To look at this issue another way, while the former PPP administration is the beneficiary of the support of participants in the agriculture sector, its lack of vision and fear of being accused of patronization has also led to weakness in the sector – a fact that can be attributed to fear of racial reprisals.
It is therefore unwise to assume that a multi-racial party will be the panacea for the ills of Guyana. Rather, attaining power on a multi-racial front takes precedence over economic progress.
To put this in perspective, the PPP has a largely East Indian support base whereas the PNC, renamed APNU, has a Black support base. The underlying reason for resorting to a multi-racial party is primarily to attract sufficient votes to secure power – and nothing else.
The truth, however, is that a multi-racial party, whose composition leverages race as its underlying modus operandi does not necessarily have a better chance of ensuring economic prosperity than a single-race party.
At the most, a multi-racial party facilitates greater political inclusiveness which does not necessarily contribute to better governance. And political inclusiveness is directly correlated to the quest for power.
In the struggle for political power, the underlying causes of the economic and social malaise which are typically attributed to the ruling government are quite often overlooked and the focus usually shifts to “race”. However, in as much as the quest for power is driven by racial motivations, it is naïve to assume that a multi-racial solution to governing the country will invoke prosperity.
That’s because the underlying problems in Guyana are not based only on racial orientations but are more or less due to economic mismanagement, corruption, nepotism, weaknesses in the administrative and governance structures, poor strategic planning, a shortage of capital to finance development, and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Together, these problems have inhibited progress, regardless of the government in power. As a result, governments have come in and out of favor, depending on economic conditions, which are inextricably linked to the state of moral, social and economic well-being of the population at large.
When economic conditions are good, the population does not have much to complain about, and consequently, racial tensions lessen.
However, when economic conditions are less than favourable, racial tensions become more pronounced, and the racial hand is dealt to the detriment of the party in power – whether or not the party promotes a multi-racial front. The current APNU administration is a case in point. It has lost favor with the masses in spite of its supposed multi-racial orientation.
In similar vein, when economic conditions, and consequently social conditions are poor, racial tensions escalate. The dislike that develops for any government in power is not necessarily due to the racial composition of the ruling party but more so because of the deterioration of economic and social conditions which can be attributed to the performance of the government.
This is not to say that racial tensions are only linked to poor economic and social conditions, but they have also been the fuel for power seekers. For instance, racial tensions have typically heightened both pre- and post-elections as political parties try to get a hold on power.
In addition, parties in opposition tend to criticize or oppose the decisions – both good and bad - of the governing party, just for the sake of opposing, which is generally linked to the attainment of power, which in turn is driven by racial motivations.
The reality is that whatever party is in power, multi-racial or not, is perceived to be resorting to decisions that are beneficial to its own interests and supporters. Therefore, a multi-racial party is not a panacea for resolving underlying economic issues, though it might lessen political tensions.
With the idea of a multi-racial government gaining traction, the question that begs to be asked is whether a multi-racial party, or any party that can break the PPP and PNC stranglehold, will form a more effective government. The answer is most likely “not a chance in hell” since race has nothing to do with economic performance.
Regardless of which party is in power – whether or not elected on a multi-racial agenda – the racial hand is often dealt to the detriment of supporters of the opposition party.
This puts any party that will rule Guyana following the next general elections in a difficult position since it will have to deal with the task of putting the country on a path to sustainable development – a reality that has more teeth than a paper tiger. Failure to do so will only result in the cyclical pattern of censure, and consequently dissatisfaction among the population.
The ruling party must have the resources and wherewithal to deal with the underperformance of the key productive sectors; the huge debt burden; poverty alleviation; entrenched corruption; the burgeoning drug trade; escalating crime; weak capital formation; and attracting viable foreign investment, among other issues.
There are numerous examples in Guyana where racial alignment to one of the two major political parties, combined with the desire for power, have led to poor economic decisions which have been detrimental to the country as a whole or to a particular race.
For instance, from an economic development perspective, the current government’s good and green agenda would have benefitted enormously from hydropower – one of the cheapest sources of alternative energy. However, the then major multi-racial opposition party opposed implementation of the Amaila Falls project – for purely selfish political reasons. But the same former opposition party – now in power - still has the project on its development agenda.
From a racial perspective, agriculture perhaps provides the best example of one political party in power hurting the country’s development prospects as well as a particular race. The PNC in its early years knowingly slashed budgetary allocations to the agricultural sector in an effort to hurt the East Indian segment of the population which plays a dominant role in agriculture and which is associated with the PPP.
The current government’s stance on agriculture is no different – even though it is interested in developing large scale agriculture. But by shifting agricultural production and budgetary support to non-traditional areas of production, it has intentionally hurt the race that does not support its political ambitions for power.
At the end of the day, though a political party might appear to be multiracial and might not be opposed to the development of the agriculture sector, for instance, it could be subtly opposed to the beneficiaries of the production process in the sector. Such behavior hurts economic development.
To look at this issue another way, while the former PPP administration is the beneficiary of the support of participants in the agriculture sector, its lack of vision and fear of being accused of patronization has also led to weakness in the sector – a fact that can be attributed to fear of racial reprisals.
It is therefore unwise to assume that a multi-racial party will be the panacea for the ills of Guyana. Rather, attaining power on a multi-racial front takes precedence over economic progress.
Georgetown – The recently formed Civil Society Forum (CSF) met with Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo last Thursday and urged him to meet and work together with President David Granger to find a solution to the stalemate surrounding pending general elections.
“The meeting discussed the importance of continued constructive engagement between the President of Guyana and the Leader of the Opposition to create an atmosphere for political stability and good governance in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution while respecting the right to seek redress via the Judiciary,” a statement from the grouping said on Saturday.
Elections are due by March 21 triggered by the successful passage of a no-confidence motion against the government on December 21. However, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has said the earliest date by which it can run off elections is July and the government is pursuing the matter in court.
The statement said that Jagdeo expressed the view that the country was on the verge of a serious constitutional crisis. It said that the CSF took serious note of the opposition leader’s concern and urged him to meet and work together with Granger to find a solution. Jagdeo made no commitment to extending the due date of the election beyond that required by the Constitution, the statement noted.
The CSF further said that of grave concern, was the absence of the state of preparedness of GECOM to administer national elections within the timeframe specified by the Constitution. “Members of the CSF expressed concern that there is a looming constitutional crisis in this unpreparedness,” the statement said.
It added that the CSF emphasised to Jagdeo its interest in facilitating dialogue between political parties as it seeks to represent the interests of the citizenry in the governance of Guyana. “The Civil Society Forum agreed to seriously reflect on the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and pledged to ensure that these are reflected in its workplan which it is currently designing,” the statement added.
It was noted that the meeting, held at Jagdeo’s Church Street office, was part of the CSF’s engagement with parliamentary parties.
The meeting also discussed the role of civil society under Article 13 of the Constitution, particularly in this period of the country’s history. Article 13 states that the principal objective of the political system of the State is “to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
The meeting expressed the shared view that the CSF would see its function extend beyond elections, and serve to ensure transparency, accountability and participation of Guyanese as part of good governance, the statement said. It added that the CSF looks forward to meeting with President Granger soon.
The CSF is a group of non-state actors in Guyana, organised under Article 13 of the Constitution. Its purpose is to engage with the State and other non-state actors to ensure that non-state actors are accepted and serve truly as a major partner in Guyana’s governance.
“The Forum will be a space to discuss, organise, and coherently communicate the interest of non-state actors to all political parties prior to, during the National Election Campaign, and to the executive and legislative arms of government beyond elections,” the statement said.
The CSF comprises: The Anglican Church of Guyana, the Guyana Human Rights Association, Movement Against Parking Meters, the Inter-Religious Organization, the Guyana Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Transparency Institute of Guyana Incorporated, Guyana Rastafarian Community, the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union, the Guyana Trades Union Congress, the Private Sector Commission, Red Thread and RISE Guyana.
“The meeting discussed the importance of continued constructive engagement between the President of Guyana and the Leader of the Opposition to create an atmosphere for political stability and good governance in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution while respecting the right to seek redress via the Judiciary,” a statement from the grouping said on Saturday.
Elections are due by March 21 triggered by the successful passage of a no-confidence motion against the government on December 21. However, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has said the earliest date by which it can run off elections is July and the government is pursuing the matter in court.
The statement said that Jagdeo expressed the view that the country was on the verge of a serious constitutional crisis. It said that the CSF took serious note of the opposition leader’s concern and urged him to meet and work together with Granger to find a solution. Jagdeo made no commitment to extending the due date of the election beyond that required by the Constitution, the statement noted.
The CSF further said that of grave concern, was the absence of the state of preparedness of GECOM to administer national elections within the timeframe specified by the Constitution. “Members of the CSF expressed concern that there is a looming constitutional crisis in this unpreparedness,” the statement said.
It added that the CSF emphasised to Jagdeo its interest in facilitating dialogue between political parties as it seeks to represent the interests of the citizenry in the governance of Guyana. “The Civil Society Forum agreed to seriously reflect on the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and pledged to ensure that these are reflected in its workplan which it is currently designing,” the statement added.
It was noted that the meeting, held at Jagdeo’s Church Street office, was part of the CSF’s engagement with parliamentary parties.
The meeting also discussed the role of civil society under Article 13 of the Constitution, particularly in this period of the country’s history. Article 13 states that the principal objective of the political system of the State is “to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
The meeting expressed the shared view that the CSF would see its function extend beyond elections, and serve to ensure transparency, accountability and participation of Guyanese as part of good governance, the statement said. It added that the CSF looks forward to meeting with President Granger soon.
The CSF is a group of non-state actors in Guyana, organised under Article 13 of the Constitution. Its purpose is to engage with the State and other non-state actors to ensure that non-state actors are accepted and serve truly as a major partner in Guyana’s governance.
“The Forum will be a space to discuss, organise, and coherently communicate the interest of non-state actors to all political parties prior to, during the National Election Campaign, and to the executive and legislative arms of government beyond elections,” the statement said.
The CSF comprises: The Anglican Church of Guyana, the Guyana Human Rights Association, Movement Against Parking Meters, the Inter-Religious Organization, the Guyana Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Transparency Institute of Guyana Incorporated, Guyana Rastafarian Community, the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union, the Guyana Trades Union Congress, the Private Sector Commission, Red Thread and RISE Guyana.
Georgetown – After March 21st, CARICOM’s attitude to the Guyana government will be under a high degree of scrutiny as the David Granger administration will be “illegal,” co-founder of A New and United Guyana (ANUG), Ralph Ramkarran says.
“The main consequences of remaining unlawfully in office after March 21st, by which time elections are due, is that the Government will lose international credibility and support, much as the Ramotar Government did in 2015 after it prorogued the National Assembly,” Ramkarran wrote in his column in the Sunday Stabroek last weekend.
Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire recently upheld a no-confidence motion that was passed against the David Granger-led government on December 21. The passage of the motion, currently the subject of a legal challenge brought by government, requires that Cabinet, including the President, resign and that elections are held within three months, unless an extension is agreed to by a two-thirds majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly.
Ramkarran noted that it appears that the Government intends to remain in office, even after March 21st, if the court cases are not over by then, which is very likely.
According to him, governments with resident diplomatic missions in Guyana, particularly those of Western countries, which have been taking strong positions against the usurpation of power elsewhere, will exert diplomatic pressure on the Government. “While they may want to remain in communication because the Government will hold de facto power, official bilateral activity may cease. Visas might be withdrawn. Overseas assets could be frozen. Economic or other sanctions may be imposed. If measures are imposed, they could be implemented selectively and one at a time, or all together,” he said.
“Historically reluctant to say anything adverse against APNU, when it was the PNC, CARICOM’s attitude will also be under a high degree of scrutiny,” Ramkarran added.
According to him, in contrast to its silence about rigged elections in Guyana and its “infamous” embrace of then President Desmond Hoyte at Mustique in 1985, CARICOM “showed no reluctance to shave two years off” the lawfully elected PPP Government by the 1998 Herdmanston Accord, which he acknowledged was by agreement, “but by a PPP Government that was under siege.”
However, he noted that public opinion in the Region is already taking shape against the Government. “As an initial step, CARICOM may well decide that from March 22, when the Government becomes illegal, it will not be invited to any meetings of CARICOM or of its bodies and agencies, or Heads of Government meetings. It might feel that an illegal Government cannot represent the people of Guyana,” Ramkarran posited.
Echoing what he said at a panel discussion organised by the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre at Red House last Wednesday, Ramkarran said that after March 21st, the Government will be illegal. “It will not be entitled to hold office, not entitled to make decisions, not entitled to enter contracts, not entitled to convene the National Assembly, not entitled to pass laws and not entitled to fix a date for elections,” he said.
“It is difficult to speculate what the Government can be called on to do in the face of its illegal existence after the due date for elections. It cannot lawfully exist so that anything that it might do will be illegal. It cannot convene the National Assembly. Even if it does, anything that the National Assembly may enact will be unlawful. When its existence becomes unlawful then the only lawful way forward, as indicated by Mr Christopher Ram, is for the Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) to take office as President. But what can the Chancellor do in the absence of a lawfully existing National Assembly? We would be in unknown constitutional territory,” the former Speaker of the National Assembly wrote.
He reiterated that Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo should meet and agree to a compromise date for elections. “As a first step the life of the Government can be extended to March 31st or thereabouts, by which time the CCJ would be expected to rule. If the Chief Justice’s decision is upheld, an elections date would be fixed during July. If the Government succeeds, it carries on to the end of its term,” he said.
If the Government cannot be persuaded to act “reasonably,” the Carter Center should intervene to mediate a solution with the clout of the (US) State Department behind it, Ramkarran added.
“(Former US) President (Jimmy) Carter, whose credibility is respected across the political spectrum, may well be able to persuade the parties along the lines outlined above, or some alternative course which prevents a crisis from developing. President Carter may also use the opportunity to persuade the parties to commit to constitutional reform to provide a framework for political parties to share executive responsibility in the governance of Guyana. President Carter, having led the way to the restoration of democracy to Guyana, believes that this is the only long-term solution to the ethnic politics that perpetuates Guyana’s instability. Both parties have already supported such a process in one form or another,” he said.
“The main consequences of remaining unlawfully in office after March 21st, by which time elections are due, is that the Government will lose international credibility and support, much as the Ramotar Government did in 2015 after it prorogued the National Assembly,” Ramkarran wrote in his column in the Sunday Stabroek last weekend.
Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire recently upheld a no-confidence motion that was passed against the David Granger-led government on December 21. The passage of the motion, currently the subject of a legal challenge brought by government, requires that Cabinet, including the President, resign and that elections are held within three months, unless an extension is agreed to by a two-thirds majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly.
Ramkarran noted that it appears that the Government intends to remain in office, even after March 21st, if the court cases are not over by then, which is very likely.
According to him, governments with resident diplomatic missions in Guyana, particularly those of Western countries, which have been taking strong positions against the usurpation of power elsewhere, will exert diplomatic pressure on the Government. “While they may want to remain in communication because the Government will hold de facto power, official bilateral activity may cease. Visas might be withdrawn. Overseas assets could be frozen. Economic or other sanctions may be imposed. If measures are imposed, they could be implemented selectively and one at a time, or all together,” he said.
“Historically reluctant to say anything adverse against APNU, when it was the PNC, CARICOM’s attitude will also be under a high degree of scrutiny,” Ramkarran added.
According to him, in contrast to its silence about rigged elections in Guyana and its “infamous” embrace of then President Desmond Hoyte at Mustique in 1985, CARICOM “showed no reluctance to shave two years off” the lawfully elected PPP Government by the 1998 Herdmanston Accord, which he acknowledged was by agreement, “but by a PPP Government that was under siege.”
However, he noted that public opinion in the Region is already taking shape against the Government. “As an initial step, CARICOM may well decide that from March 22, when the Government becomes illegal, it will not be invited to any meetings of CARICOM or of its bodies and agencies, or Heads of Government meetings. It might feel that an illegal Government cannot represent the people of Guyana,” Ramkarran posited.
Echoing what he said at a panel discussion organised by the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre at Red House last Wednesday, Ramkarran said that after March 21st, the Government will be illegal. “It will not be entitled to hold office, not entitled to make decisions, not entitled to enter contracts, not entitled to convene the National Assembly, not entitled to pass laws and not entitled to fix a date for elections,” he said.
“It is difficult to speculate what the Government can be called on to do in the face of its illegal existence after the due date for elections. It cannot lawfully exist so that anything that it might do will be illegal. It cannot convene the National Assembly. Even if it does, anything that the National Assembly may enact will be unlawful. When its existence becomes unlawful then the only lawful way forward, as indicated by Mr Christopher Ram, is for the Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) to take office as President. But what can the Chancellor do in the absence of a lawfully existing National Assembly? We would be in unknown constitutional territory,” the former Speaker of the National Assembly wrote.
He reiterated that Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo should meet and agree to a compromise date for elections. “As a first step the life of the Government can be extended to March 31st or thereabouts, by which time the CCJ would be expected to rule. If the Chief Justice’s decision is upheld, an elections date would be fixed during July. If the Government succeeds, it carries on to the end of its term,” he said.
If the Government cannot be persuaded to act “reasonably,” the Carter Center should intervene to mediate a solution with the clout of the (US) State Department behind it, Ramkarran added.
“(Former US) President (Jimmy) Carter, whose credibility is respected across the political spectrum, may well be able to persuade the parties along the lines outlined above, or some alternative course which prevents a crisis from developing. President Carter may also use the opportunity to persuade the parties to commit to constitutional reform to provide a framework for political parties to share executive responsibility in the governance of Guyana. President Carter, having led the way to the restoration of democracy to Guyana, believes that this is the only long-term solution to the ethnic politics that perpetuates Guyana’s instability. Both parties have already supported such a process in one form or another,” he said.
Georgetown – A new US$180 million Global Environmental Facility (GEF) programme aims to improve the working conditions for artisanal and small scale miners (ASGM) in Guyana and seven other countries while slashing harmful mercury emissions.
The Global Opportunities for the Long-term Development (GOLD) of the AGSM sector aims to reduce the use of mercury in the sector and introduce and facilitate access to mercury –free extraction methods, while also working with governments to formalize the sector, promoting miners rights, safety and their access to markets.
GEF is a partnership of a number of agencies including United Nations bodies.
According to a press statement from Conservation International-Guyana the backers of the programme have noted that urgent action is needed to protect the millions of men, women and children exposed to toxic levels of mercury through gold production every year.
“Every year, more than 2,700 tonnes of gold is mined around the world. 20% of that- over 500 tonnes annually- is produced by …the ASGM sector [which] is also the world’s single largest source of man-made mercury emissions, releasing as much as 1,000 tonnes of mercury (almost 40 per cent of the global total) into the atmosphere every year,” the statement explains.
The five-year programme is a partnership between the GEF, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and Conservation International. The Guyanese government as well as the government of Burkina Faso, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Mongolia, the Philippines and Peru are also listed as partners.
“By phasing out mercury use and connecting miners to markets for responsibly produced and sourced minerals, GEF GOLD will help to ensure the gold value chain both supports miners and provides consumers with access to ethically produced, environmentally sustainable gold,” Jacob Duer, Head of the UN Environment Chemicals and Health branch is quoting as saying.
He added that “promoting and facilitating access to non-mercury processing techniques for artisanal and small-scale miners is vital – not only to reduce mercury emissions, but to protect the health of vulnerable communities” since studies indicate that mercury exposure in ASGM is a major, largely neglected global health problem.
GEF GOLD therefore aims to secure miners’ livelihoods, through opening up the access to markets and finance needed to increase incomes and enable the uptake of mercury-free technology.
By phasing out mercury use, the programme aims to achieve eventual mercury emission reductions of 369 tonnes, supporting countries’ commitments under the Minamata Convention on Mercury to reduce and, where feasible, eliminate mercury use in the sector.
Additionally the GEF GOLD programme will work with the private sector across industries and partners including the Better Gold Initiative, Alliance for Responsible Mining and Fairtrade International to promote compliance with international standards on responsible mineral supply chains.
The Global Opportunities for the Long-term Development (GOLD) of the AGSM sector aims to reduce the use of mercury in the sector and introduce and facilitate access to mercury –free extraction methods, while also working with governments to formalize the sector, promoting miners rights, safety and their access to markets.
GEF is a partnership of a number of agencies including United Nations bodies.
According to a press statement from Conservation International-Guyana the backers of the programme have noted that urgent action is needed to protect the millions of men, women and children exposed to toxic levels of mercury through gold production every year.
“Every year, more than 2,700 tonnes of gold is mined around the world. 20% of that- over 500 tonnes annually- is produced by …the ASGM sector [which] is also the world’s single largest source of man-made mercury emissions, releasing as much as 1,000 tonnes of mercury (almost 40 per cent of the global total) into the atmosphere every year,” the statement explains.
The five-year programme is a partnership between the GEF, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and Conservation International. The Guyanese government as well as the government of Burkina Faso, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Mongolia, the Philippines and Peru are also listed as partners.
“By phasing out mercury use and connecting miners to markets for responsibly produced and sourced minerals, GEF GOLD will help to ensure the gold value chain both supports miners and provides consumers with access to ethically produced, environmentally sustainable gold,” Jacob Duer, Head of the UN Environment Chemicals and Health branch is quoting as saying.
He added that “promoting and facilitating access to non-mercury processing techniques for artisanal and small-scale miners is vital – not only to reduce mercury emissions, but to protect the health of vulnerable communities” since studies indicate that mercury exposure in ASGM is a major, largely neglected global health problem.
GEF GOLD therefore aims to secure miners’ livelihoods, through opening up the access to markets and finance needed to increase incomes and enable the uptake of mercury-free technology.
By phasing out mercury use, the programme aims to achieve eventual mercury emission reductions of 369 tonnes, supporting countries’ commitments under the Minamata Convention on Mercury to reduce and, where feasible, eliminate mercury use in the sector.
Additionally the GEF GOLD programme will work with the private sector across industries and partners including the Better Gold Initiative, Alliance for Responsible Mining and Fairtrade International to promote compliance with international standards on responsible mineral supply chains.
dual citizenship
Georgetown – Attorney-at-law, Christopher Ram Monday lodged a formal complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Leslie James on possible violations of the laws of Guyana by members of the National Assembly who hold dual citizenship.
Ram noted in the complaint that a constitutional action brought by a fellow citizen Compton Reid saw the Chief Justice (ag.) Roxane George ruling that “anyone who holds dual citizenship, that is, citizenship of Guyana and of a foreign power or state, as envisaged by Article 155 (1) (a) and therefore falls in this category of disqualified person pursuant to Article 156 (1) (d) should not and cannot be a member of the National Assembly …. ”.
He said that in his opinion the following persons are likely to have taken a false oath and therefore violated section 4 of the Statutory Declarations Act.
Adrian Anamayah; Dominic Gaskin;
Carl Greenidge; Joseph Harmon;
Odinga Lumumba; Rupert Roopnaraine;
and Gail Teixeira.
He said that he has also asked the Commissioner of Police to expand this investigation to all Members of Parliament since reports from the media suggest other members have refused to answer questions by the media on whether they have dual citizenship.
Ram said that the oath, set out in a Form to the Representation of the People’s Act specifically refers to Article 155 and “even the weak defence of ignorance cannot therefore mitigate against the offence. It is perhaps not without significance that taking a false oath constitutes a criminal act under the Criminal Law Offences Act. Despite calls made in the past for compliance, candidates appeared to have considered themselves above the very law which they swore to uphold. The consequences of such disdain and contempt for the law have now become pellucid and credit must go to the Attorney General Mr. Basil Williams S.C. and the attorneys for Mr. Reid for their strong, persuasive and ultimately successful arguments in the case. Unfortunately, despite the ruling by the Chief Justice, very senior members of the National Assembly continue to flout the law posing a threat to the effective convening of the National Assembly and any proceedings thereat”.
Ram said that the case of Greenidge is a cause of considerable concern since he represents Guyana’s interest regionally and internationally. He added that. Harmon’s case is equally serious, if ironic.
“His most recent pronouncement that there is not enough matter to warrant the convening of the National Assembly suggests that he has assumed the role of decider or communicator of whether that body can meet, even though he himself is legally barred from that body. Mr. Harmon also appears to have taken a lead role in the continuing defiance of the Government to the ruling by the Court, a defiance which threatens democracy in our country”, Ram stated.
Ram said that any efforts or action to subvert democracy must be prevented at all cost.
“The Guyana Police Force, as the Country’s principal law enforcement body has a duty to ensure that that is done. In view of the grave nature of this matter, I have therefore implored the Commissioner of Police to undertake the investigation with all convenient speed and diligence and to take such action as is necessary and appropriate…”, Ram said.
Ram noted in the complaint that a constitutional action brought by a fellow citizen Compton Reid saw the Chief Justice (ag.) Roxane George ruling that “anyone who holds dual citizenship, that is, citizenship of Guyana and of a foreign power or state, as envisaged by Article 155 (1) (a) and therefore falls in this category of disqualified person pursuant to Article 156 (1) (d) should not and cannot be a member of the National Assembly …. ”.
He said that in his opinion the following persons are likely to have taken a false oath and therefore violated section 4 of the Statutory Declarations Act.
Adrian Anamayah; Dominic Gaskin;
Carl Greenidge; Joseph Harmon;
Odinga Lumumba; Rupert Roopnaraine;
and Gail Teixeira.
He said that he has also asked the Commissioner of Police to expand this investigation to all Members of Parliament since reports from the media suggest other members have refused to answer questions by the media on whether they have dual citizenship.
Ram said that the oath, set out in a Form to the Representation of the People’s Act specifically refers to Article 155 and “even the weak defence of ignorance cannot therefore mitigate against the offence. It is perhaps not without significance that taking a false oath constitutes a criminal act under the Criminal Law Offences Act. Despite calls made in the past for compliance, candidates appeared to have considered themselves above the very law which they swore to uphold. The consequences of such disdain and contempt for the law have now become pellucid and credit must go to the Attorney General Mr. Basil Williams S.C. and the attorneys for Mr. Reid for their strong, persuasive and ultimately successful arguments in the case. Unfortunately, despite the ruling by the Chief Justice, very senior members of the National Assembly continue to flout the law posing a threat to the effective convening of the National Assembly and any proceedings thereat”.
Ram said that the case of Greenidge is a cause of considerable concern since he represents Guyana’s interest regionally and internationally. He added that. Harmon’s case is equally serious, if ironic.
“His most recent pronouncement that there is not enough matter to warrant the convening of the National Assembly suggests that he has assumed the role of decider or communicator of whether that body can meet, even though he himself is legally barred from that body. Mr. Harmon also appears to have taken a lead role in the continuing defiance of the Government to the ruling by the Court, a defiance which threatens democracy in our country”, Ram stated.
Ram said that any efforts or action to subvert democracy must be prevented at all cost.
“The Guyana Police Force, as the Country’s principal law enforcement body has a duty to ensure that that is done. In view of the grave nature of this matter, I have therefore implored the Commissioner of Police to undertake the investigation with all convenient speed and diligence and to take such action as is necessary and appropriate…”, Ram said.
police brutality
Georgetown – An East Coast Demerara man has filed a $50 million lawsuit against government for injuries he allegedly sustained at the hands of ranks at the Vigilance Police Station in December last year.
Through attorney Anil Nandlall, Premchand (only name) of Lot 125 Strathspey is seeking in excess of $10 million in damages for breach of his fundamental right and freedom to personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 139 of the Constitution; in excess of $10 million in damages for false imprisonment; in excess of $10 million in damages for breach of his fundamental right and freedom not to be subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading punishment as guaranteed by Article 141 of the Constitution; in excess of $10 million in damages for assault, battery and personal injuries sustained; in excess of $10 million in exemplary damages; and such further and other orders the court may issue as well as writs and such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the provisions of Article 138 to 151 inclusive in the Constitution.
Premchand is listed as the claimant while the Attorney General is listed as the defendant.
According to the statement of claim, Premchand, 49, of Strathspey, is the sole financial provider for his son who is a minor.
It states that on December 26th, 2018, pursuant to a report made by his common law wife to the Vigilance Police Station regarding the alleged abusive behaviour of Premchand, he was arrested at his home by ranks of the Vigilance Police Station and was taken into custody at the station.
At the time of his arrest, it adds, he bore no injuries of any sort, and though intoxicated, was in good health and was able to walk and use his arms and legs with normalcy.
According to the statement, “Upon arrival at Vigilance Police Station, three Police ranks commenced beating the Claimant about his body; one of the officers hit him in the head with his gun several times, as a result he fell to the ground; whilst on the ground they kicked him and stamped on his back until he lost consciousness.”
It adds that on the following morning he regained consciousness and found himself in the station’s lockup and was experiencing pain. Shortly after, Premchand claims, one of the three officers entered the cell and began slapping and cuffing him in the face, while demanding that he remain quiet as he was groaning in pain.
The statement says that during the course of that day, Premchand was taken by police officers to a hospital at Nabaclis and then to the Mahaicony Cottage Hospital where medical tests were done. An X-ray examination was conducted at Mahaicony Cottage Hospital.
“By this time, the Claimant was unable to walk and continued to experience tremendous pain in his head and about his body,” the statement further says, while adding that Premchand was released from police custody on bail on December 29th, 2018.
“As a result of the physical condition of the Claimant and the injuries observed on his head and about his body, the Claimant was rushed to the Woodlands Hospital, Georgetown, where he underwent a brain surgery to effect the removal of blood clots from his brain. Additionally, a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Scan, an X-ray examination and a Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan were also done,” according to the statement, which adds that he was hospitalised for 13 days.
The statement of claim notes that $2.06 million was spent on medical expenses, $20,000 on food and nourishment, $50,000 on transportation and loss of income amounted to $6,000 per day.
Through attorney Anil Nandlall, Premchand (only name) of Lot 125 Strathspey is seeking in excess of $10 million in damages for breach of his fundamental right and freedom to personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 139 of the Constitution; in excess of $10 million in damages for false imprisonment; in excess of $10 million in damages for breach of his fundamental right and freedom not to be subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading punishment as guaranteed by Article 141 of the Constitution; in excess of $10 million in damages for assault, battery and personal injuries sustained; in excess of $10 million in exemplary damages; and such further and other orders the court may issue as well as writs and such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the provisions of Article 138 to 151 inclusive in the Constitution.
Premchand is listed as the claimant while the Attorney General is listed as the defendant.
According to the statement of claim, Premchand, 49, of Strathspey, is the sole financial provider for his son who is a minor.
It states that on December 26th, 2018, pursuant to a report made by his common law wife to the Vigilance Police Station regarding the alleged abusive behaviour of Premchand, he was arrested at his home by ranks of the Vigilance Police Station and was taken into custody at the station.
At the time of his arrest, it adds, he bore no injuries of any sort, and though intoxicated, was in good health and was able to walk and use his arms and legs with normalcy.
According to the statement, “Upon arrival at Vigilance Police Station, three Police ranks commenced beating the Claimant about his body; one of the officers hit him in the head with his gun several times, as a result he fell to the ground; whilst on the ground they kicked him and stamped on his back until he lost consciousness.”
It adds that on the following morning he regained consciousness and found himself in the station’s lockup and was experiencing pain. Shortly after, Premchand claims, one of the three officers entered the cell and began slapping and cuffing him in the face, while demanding that he remain quiet as he was groaning in pain.
The statement says that during the course of that day, Premchand was taken by police officers to a hospital at Nabaclis and then to the Mahaicony Cottage Hospital where medical tests were done. An X-ray examination was conducted at Mahaicony Cottage Hospital.
“By this time, the Claimant was unable to walk and continued to experience tremendous pain in his head and about his body,” the statement further says, while adding that Premchand was released from police custody on bail on December 29th, 2018.
“As a result of the physical condition of the Claimant and the injuries observed on his head and about his body, the Claimant was rushed to the Woodlands Hospital, Georgetown, where he underwent a brain surgery to effect the removal of blood clots from his brain. Additionally, a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Scan, an X-ray examination and a Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan were also done,” according to the statement, which adds that he was hospitalised for 13 days.
The statement of claim notes that $2.06 million was spent on medical expenses, $20,000 on food and nourishment, $50,000 on transportation and loss of income amounted to $6,000 per day.
To advertise in ICW call
Call 905-738-5005