Dear Editor,
On February 20, I attended, and presented at, the 49th Universal Periodic Review pre-session on Guyana. That session, which was held in Geneva, provided an opportunity for civil society organizations to report on the Government`s implementation of the recommendations on Human Rights that were made at the end of the previous session, four years ago. The opportunity was also provided for issues which arose during the reporting period to be raised. I, as Chairperson of IDPADA-G, attended that forum.
On February 26, 2025 Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, who is Guyana`s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva, in his Guyana Times column- Ruminations- proffered that my presentation was “Baldfaced (sic), Reprehensible, Ugly lies”. Ironically, the title of his column is tantamount to confessing his state of being. “Rumination is a form of perseverative cognition that … results in emotional distress.”
While accusing me of “lies”, Ramsammy failed to address, directly, my propositions, sought to create his own context, and barefacedly misrepresented what I presented. He engaged in a baseless and propagandistic defense of the PPP/C record on Human Rights.
For example, in my presentation, I referred to promotions in the Police Force during and immediately after the tenure of Paul Slowe as Chairman of the Police Service Commission. Ramsammy misleadingly referred to the recent promotions that post-dated my presentations and to wit that of the Army rather than the Police Force.
That notwithstanding, the essence of my contention prevails. In his fulminations he correctly stated that the Police Force is dominated by African Guyanese but failed to acknowledge the recent disproportionate promotion of Indian Guyanese in the higher ranks of the Force. Of 8 promotions to Assistant Commissioner 4 are Indo-Guyanese, and of 14 promotions to Senior Superintendent 8 are discernible Indo-Guyanese, in a Force in which according to him “Afro-Guyanese dominate”.
That African Guyanese dominate the Public Sector is historical. That the hierarchy is now disproportionately, and in some instances, absolutely dominated by Indo-Guyanese is a function of the Government`s covert and discriminatory policy as contended by Slowe and Brutus, both of whom were given directives to show favour to Indians without reference to merit. That was my contention in Geneva. It cannot be refuted by Ramsammy or any of his ilk. This covert policy is indicative of what`s occurring across the Public Sector.
In relation to the granting of contracts, nothing has changed with regards to the inequitable distribution of the spoils. Of course, there are many more small black contractors, no less small Indian contractors, and an oligarchy of big Indian contractors who still dominate. They either sub-contract to the small blacks for the want of capacity, although capacity is the basis on which they are awarded the contracts.
In other instances, the small contractors, due to meagre resources, are forced to hire equipment from the oligarchs who in-turn get the hog of the contract sum leaving many African subcontractors with a pittance. This argument about African Guyanese benefitting is but a façade.
The images on billboards and in media; coverage of events across the country, of the distribution of resources – land titles, contracts; selections to boards and commissions, the selection of the historic sites protected and those ignored – all depict the stark and inequities/iniquities in society and cannot be refuted merely by vitriol. Hence, the contention that the society is “akin” to Apartheid.
Ramsammy repeatedly accuses me of referring to Guyana as being an Apartheid state. While there are those who with some justifications do so, I did not. Ramsammy either lacks what it takes to understand what is meant by “akin” or finds it advantageous to misrepresent my statement and in doing so is as “baldfaced (sic) and reprehensible” as is his assertion about me.
With regard to the Mocha issue, there is no case more blatant. At the time of the demolition, the Government justified its action on the basis that the land was required for the construction of the road. The lands were never in the path of the road. The road has since been completed without the use of the affected lands. In addition, other lands adjacent to the new roadway have been allocated to others. Suffice to say that Ramsammy tries to spin a new tale about the atrocity.
Although, it is the current President who encouraged those people to establish themselves on those lands when he was responsible for the Ministry of Housing. It is the current President who told “me”, in person, that ‘the construction of the road would result in the escalation of the value of the properties adjacent to the proposed road’. A benefit to the residents according to him. He also stated that at a community meeting.
No contention that some persons accepted compensation can negate the savage, vile and unjustified acts of demolition of property and disruption of people`s livelihood. The current post trial offer of alternate lands epitomizes hypocrisy and the politicisation of the people`s plight. The Government was written to pleading for an engagement before the court action was filed. The affected persons were not afforded the courtesy of a response.
Ramsammy’s diatribe does not refute any of the propositions of my presentation, and it fails in its attempt to obfuscate the poor and untenable Human Rights record of the Government. Notably, he stays clear of my submission on issues such as the disregard for inclusivity as provided for in our constitution and the urgent issues surrounding the right to vote and the use of biometrics as a means of protecting that right and ensuring a free and fair election process.
Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
