IDPADA-G Statement on Constitutional Maturity and the Rule of Law Following the High Court Judgment

Today marks an important moment—not only for the International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly – Guyana (IDPADA-G), but for every Guyanese who believes that fairness, accountability and the rule of law remain the foundation of our constitutional democracy.

After more than three years, the High Court has delivered its judgment in the proceedings arising from the Government’s decision to discontinue IDPADA-G’s subvention in 2022.

The Court held that IDPADA-G ought to have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard before that decision was taken, and it has ordered payment of the remaining instalments of the 2022 subvention. 

We acknowledge the Court’s judgment and appreciate its recognition of the delay in its delivery.

Today, however, should not simply be viewed as the conclusion of litigation.

It should be viewed as an opportunity for our nation to demonstrate something even more important—constitutional maturity.

The true measure of constitutional democracy is not whether citizens, institutions or governments agree with every aspect of a judicial decision.

It is whether they respect the authority of the Court and faithfully implement its orders, even where they may hold principled and substantial disagreements with aspects of its reasoning.

That principle applies equally to every citizen.

It applies equally to every institution.

And it applies equally to Government.

Like many important constitutional decisions, this judgment raises significant questions concerning governmental commitments, procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, transparency, accountability and the relationship between the State and civil society.

Those questions deserve thoughtful national reflection.

We respectfully acknowledge the judgment while recognizing that we maintain principled and substantial disagreements with important aspects of its reasoning. Yet constitutional democracy recognizes that reasonable people may disagree with judicial reasoning while fully respecting the authority of the Court and the rule of law. 

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of constitutional maturity is the ability to distinguish between disagreement and disobedience.

Not every disagreement with a judgment requires a protracted legal contest.

Not every score must be settled in a single encounter.

Sometimes the greater demonstration of constitutional maturity is to acknowledge that a court has spoken, to respect its authority, and to ensure that its orders are faithfully implemented, while recognising that unresolved legal questions may, if necessary, be addressed through the orderly constitutional processes available at another time.

Today, IDPADA-G invites our nation to choose that higher ground of constitutional maturity.

We respectfully accept that the judgment of the High Court must be respected and that the orders it has made must be faithfully implemented.

Our respect for the Court, however, should not be mistaken for agreement with every aspect of its reasoning. In every constitutional democracy, principled disagreement with judicial reasoning has an important and legitimate place. What distinguishes mature constitutional societies is not the absence of disagreement, but the willingness to respect judicial authority while reserving unresolved legal questions for the appropriate time and forum, should further consideration become necessary.

Having chosen that course ourselves, we now invite the Government to demonstrate the same constitutional maturity by giving prompt and faithful effect to the Court’s order. 

Today should not be about prolonging disagreement.

It should be about demonstrating, through action rather than words, that respect for the rule of law transcends differences of opinion and that constitutional responsibility belongs equally to citizens and to the State.

At its core, the judgment affirms that the Government was wrong to discontinue IDPADA-G’s subvention in the manner it did. The Court concluded that fairness required the organization to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before that decision was taken. That finding is important not only because it vindicates a principle long advanced by IDPADA-G, but because it reaffirms a broader constitutional expectation—that public power must be exercised fairly.

Behind this litigation stand former and current employees, survey enumerators, community organizations, grant recipients, suppliers and service providers. 

These are people who honoured their commitments in good faith. They are not statistics. They are our fellow Guyanese.

They contributed their time, their effort and their talents in pursuit of a national mission that sought to advance Recognition, Justice and Development for people of African descent in Guyana.

The Court’s order represents an important step toward ensuring that those commitments are likewise honoured.

This case has never been solely about one organization.

It concerns the confidence that citizens and civil society organizations may reasonably place in the commitments and conduct of the State.

How should Governments honour public commitments?

How should citizens who act in good faith be treated?

How do we strengthen confidence in public institutions?

These questions belong to every Guyanese because trust is one of the indispensable foundations upon which democratic societies are built.

The Government justified terminating IDPADA-G’s subvention by relying upon complaints said to have been made by other persons and organizations.

Significantly, as the Court observed, the identities of those persons and organizations were never disclosed.

That observation underscores an important constitutional principle.

Public power must always be exercised fairly.

Transparency, accountability and procedural fairness are not technical legal concepts.

They are the safeguards that protect every citizen whenever decisions are made that affect livelihoods, institutions and public confidence.

Those safeguards exist not merely for IDPADA-G, but for all Guyanese.

The judgment also invites broader reflection on the nature of governmental commitments.

The evidence before the Court established that IDPADA-G was granted subvention status, maintained an official account at the Bank of Guyana, received regular monthly disbursements over several years, and functioned in practice as the implementing organization for Guyana’s observance of the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent.

Those facts naturally raise important questions concerning the relationship between governmental commitments and public confidence.

They invite thoughtful national reflection on how the State should engage with civil society organizations that act in reliance upon longstanding governmental arrangements.

These are questions worthy of continued public discussion because they affect not merely one organization, but the quality of governance itself.

The International Decade for People of African Descent (2015 – 2024) has formally concluded.

Yet Guyana has joined the international community in supporting the Second International Decade for People of African Descent (2025-2034).

That renewed commitment provides our nation with an opportunity to continue advancing the ideals of Recognition, Justice and Development through partnership, transparency, fairness and mutual respect.

This moment is the product of the resilience of many people. We extend our sincere gratitude to our staff, volunteers, member organizations, supporters and the many Guyanese who never lost faith in this organization or in the importance of its mission.

Today we also express our profound appreciation to our attorneys, Nigel Hughes of Hughes, Fields & Stoby and Dr. Vivian Williams of VMW LAW, for their distinguished service throughout these proceedings.

Your confidence strengthened our resolve.

Your commitment sustained this organization throughout one of the most difficult periods in its history -from 2022 to today.

IDPADA-G remains firmly committed to the principles upon which it was founded.

• Recognition.
• Justice, and
• Development.

These are not merely aspirations.

They are enduring national values.

They did not begin with this litigation.

They do not end with this judgment.

They remain essential to the future development of Guyana.

Accordingly, we respectfully call upon the Government to demonstrate the same constitutional maturity that we have sought to uphold today by implementing the Court’s order promptly and fully.

Respect for the rule of law is not measured when judicial decisions are convenient.

It is measured when institutions faithfully implement judicial orders despite disagreement.

That is the standard by which mature constitutional democracies are judged.

It is the standard to which IDPADA-G remains committed.

It is the standard to which we respectfully invite the Government.

And it is the standard that we owe to every Guyanese.

Our expectation is simple. A wrong that began in 2022 should end in 2026—not because IDPADA-G demands it, but because the rule of law requires it. Constitutional responsibility now calls upon all of us to move beyond the dispute itself and demonstrate, through our actions, that in Guyana no one is above the law, every institution is accountable to the law, and every judgment of the Court deserves respect. That is how public confidence is built. That is how constitutional democracy is strengthened. And that is the Guyana to which IDPADA-G remains committed.