By Mark DaCosta- On 30 September 2024, the Honourable Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled against opposition Member of Parliament Catherine Hughes in her bid to establish a Human Rights Commission in Guyana. Ms Hughes, who had taken the Attorney General and Leader of the Opposition to court, sought several legal remedies, the most prominent being a declaration that the state was obligated to create and operationalise the Human Rights Commission, as outlined in the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.
Among the fifteen declarations Hughes sought was one stating that the failure of the state to set up this commission constituted a breach of her rights under Article 154A of the Constitution, which guarantees human rights protection and enforcement. However, in delivering the oral decision, the Chief Justice dismissed Hughes’ application, declaring that while the non-establishment of the Human Rights Commission indeed violates the Constitution, it does not, as Hughes claimed, infringe on her personal rights.
This ruling came after much anticipation, as the establishment of a Human Rights Commission has been a point of contention in Guyana for many years. The commission is meant to act as a safeguard, ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected and upheld by the state. Hughes’ case attempted to force the government to take action on this matter, but the court’s decision has delayed that effort.
A notable aspect of the ruling was the Chief Justice’s comment on the controversy surrounding the Vice President’s public remarks. The court took issue with a derogatory statement made by the Vice President in response to Hughes, where she was referred to as a “low life.” While the Chief Justice noted that such a statement could be viewed as inappropriate, this alone was not sufficient grounds for Hughes’ claim regarding the Human Rights Commission.
In a decision that showed the court’s discontent with the origin of the controversy, no costs were awarded. This means that neither party is required to cover the other’s legal expenses — a rare move that underscores the court’s displeasure with the tone of the political discourse that had surrounded the case.
Despite the ruling, Hughes remains resolute. She has announced her intention to appeal the Chief Justice’s decision, signalling that her fight for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission is far from over. Hughes’ legal team has been instructed to pursue the case further through the Court of Appeal, with details of the appeal process to be shared with the public in due course.
The absence of this body has drawn criticism from human rights activists and the wider public. Many analysts argue that the prolonged delay in establishing the commission leaves a gap in the protection of human rights in Guyana, particularly at a time when political discourse has become increasingly charged and divisive.
Catherine Hughes, a prominent figure in Guyanese politics and a member of the opposition, has long been a vocal advocate for human rights and governance reforms. Her case against the state represents a broader struggle to hold the government accountable for fulfilling its constitutional duties. Hughes has frequently criticised the current People’s Progressive Party (PPP) administration for what she describes as a failure to ensure that key democratic institutions are operational, a sentiment shared by other opposition members.
Guyana’s Constitution, ratified in 1980 and later amended, mandates the establishment of several commissions to promote transparency, human rights, and social justice. However, many of these bodies have faced delays or challenges in becoming fully functional. The Human Rights Commission, which was envisioned as a vital mechanism for addressing human rights concerns, remains one of the most significant omissions.
As Guyana continues to navigate complex political and socio-economic issues, the case for establishing institutions like the Human Rights Commission grows stronger. With the appeal set to be filed, it remains to be seen whether the higher courts will offer a different interpretation of the Constitution and the state’s obligations in this matter. What is clear, however, is that the debate over human rights protections in our country is far from settled.
