Under the dictatorial phase of the Burnham Presidency subordination of the State to the whims and wishes of the ruling party was symbolized by the flying of the PNC party flag over the Court of Appeal. Similar levels of control over the administration of justice are pursued by the current Government. Rather than the flag, however, control is symbolized in the refusal to confirm the appointments of the Chief Justice and the Chancellor and the interference at all levels of the Guyana Police Force (GPF).
A direct consequence of reducing these institutions to arms of the ruling party has become evident over the past week in a variety of alarming ways: fatuous charges of ‘criminal libel’, ‘inciting racial tension’ and ‘blasphemy’ against opposition figures along with remand to prison and indictable charges of a youth for broadcasting an especially objectionable song. The persons affected include a former Mayor of Georgetown and a long-standing critic of the ruling party based for decades in New York.
Meddling in the affairs of the GPF extended to the vindictive transfer of a rank from one end of the country to the other for what appeared to be a routine handshake with a visiting opposition presidential candidate for the upcoming elections.
Chief Justice Roxanne George, who together with Chancellor of the Judiciary are themselves victims of paramountcy in the persistent refusal by the President to confirm them in their posts—launched a withering broadside against the Attorney-General’s Chambers, in particular, for small-minded nonsense the Judiciary has to deal with. She complained about resurrecting obsolete laws. Not only were the charges inappropriate, she said, they should never have been laid in the first place. The Chief Justice described the jaunt to New York by a Guyana police officer to serve the charges on Rickford Burke as a ‘frolic’ at tax-payers’ expense.
The Chief Justices’ comments reinforce concern over the persistent assault on freedom of expression in today’s Guyana. The resort to criminal defamation to protect individual reputation is “unnecessary, disproportionately excessive, and not justified,” she stated, ‘particularly in a democratic society where civil remedies exist”. She also held that Section 113 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:01, which criminalizes defamatory libel, violates Article 146 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
‘Blasphemous libel’ charges for which Skello was charged indictably and remanded to prison were absurd, no matter how offensive the ‘song’ he authored. Attempting to use the law as an instrument for addressing public morality ought to be a last resort. To this extent the Ethnic Relations Commission in addition to its rebuke to him could have usefully treated it as a teaching opportunity on what “public morality” means in the Guyanese context.
Skelly and others might be forgiven, for example, for misinterpreting what is acceptable public morality given the recent State Ball hosted by the President and his wife where attendees were treated to scantily-dressed girls swinging from the ceiling—without apparent consideration for the sensibilities of unprepared guests..
Every society has limitations on individual freedoms. Ours are to be found in (Article146(5)(a) of the Constitution modelled on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which permits restrictions deemed “necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others.
It should also be noted that the Guyana Constitution is littered with inappropriate limitations of all kinds. They are mostly colonial hang-overs which, were the long-promised constitutional reform process to finally materialize, should be simply thrown out. As long as hang-overs such as Clause 38F—“no person’s religion or religious belief shall be vilified” remain, they will continue to be used to create mischief and political vindictiveness .At the same time the Institutions of State and civil society should vocally and vigorously protest the reckless degradation of all arms of the legal process. The current shambles contrasts sharply with memories of an era shaped by legendary Guyanese legal practitioners such as Professor J.O.F. Haynes, Rex McKay, Sonny Ramphal, Dr. Mohamed Shahabudeen, Doodnauth Singh, Sir Lionel Alfred Luckhoo, Desiree Bernard, Sir Fenton Ramsahoye, Clarence Hughes, and Dr. Claude Denbow.
