PUBLIC MISCHIEF and the Ethnic Relations Commission

Feb 13, 2011 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

The Constitutionality of the Ethnic Relations Commission has been of grave concern to most stakeholders in Guyana for more than three years. Despite this reality, both the government and the purported Chairman, Bishop Juan Edghill, seem oblivious to the fact that once this cloud hangs over its head, that Body would be impotent in fulfilling the objectives envisaged by the framers of the amended 1980 Constitution that was unanimously approved by the Parliament of Guyana.
PUBLIC MISCHIEF
Regrettably, instead of addressing this significant issue, the President and the purported Chairman have engaged in the dissemination of misinformation, which can at best be described as public mischief. The most recent misinformation came from the lips of President Jagdeo last Friday, in response to a question from a member of the media. The Guyana Times of Saturday, February 12 2011, reporting on this interview stated,
“ Jagdeo, in responding to concerns expressed by Corbin on Thursday about Edghill’s involvement in elections- related matters, said he does not believe that the PNC grouse has anything to do with the constitutionality of that body.
“That is all propaganda driven by the PNCR hatred for the individual rather than anything else,” he pointed out. According to him, the opposition political party had refused to support a resolution to reconstitute the constitutional commission because of the inclusion of the inter-religious organisation as one of the groups to be consulted.
“We thought that since we had the Christians, the Muslims and the Hindus, that it didn’t cover the Baha’is and the Rastafarians etc… that we add this organisation,” the president explained ….”
Asked whether he thought about addressing the party’s concerns now, given the important role the ERC can play in an election period, Jagdeo responded: “ If they are prepared to move forward with that ( IRO inclusion), clearly we can complete the process.”
These statements by President Jagdeo are far from the truth, since the existing provisions of the Constitution provide adequately for the appointment of the ERC. Consequently, the only impediment to the appointment of a Constitutional ERC is the refusal of the PPP to implement those provisions while seeking to impose their will to make changes to the Constitution that do not have the support of the two-thirds vote of the National Assembly of the Parliament as required by Article 164 of the Constitution.
THE CONSTITUTION
In its Kaieteur News Weekly Column of July 18, 2010, under the caption, “The Unconstitutional Ethnic Relations Commission” the PNCR explained the impasse surrounding the failure of the PPP Administration to abide by the Constitution in the reconstitution of the ERC, after the life of the last Commission expired in 2007.
That column, however, only emphasised what the PNCR had effectively stated in the National Assembly of the Parliament, since 2007, when the PPP, in clear violation of the Constitution, used its majority to pass Resolution #36, entitled “Appointment of Members of the Ethnic Relations Commission”, dated 9 August 2007.
The ERC is governed by Article 212B, which specifies, inter alia, that the ERC shall consist of, “(a)not less than five and not more than fifteen members nominated by entities, by a consensual mechanism determined by the National Assembly, including entities, representative of religious bodies, the labour movement, the private business sector, youth and women, after the entities are determined by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all elected members of the National Assembly;”
THE CONSENSUAL MECHANISM
The entities that were agreed upon, to be consulted through the consensual mechanism, were unanimously approved by the National Assembly several years ago. The entities subsequently elected their representatives who constituted the first Commission. Among the representatives were three from religious bodies, (Christian, Hindu, and Muslim). Bishop Edghill was the representative of the Christian community and he was subsequently elected Chairman. Both the life of the Commission and the tenure of the Office of the Chairman came to an end in 2007.
On the expiry of the life of the Commission and Commissioners, all the entities were constitutionally obligated, using the process stipulated by the consensual mechanism, to either identify their new representatives or determine if the current representatives should continue.
This process was, however, stymied when the PPP sought to subvert it by arbitrarily adding another specially created religious entity, the IRO, to the already identified list of entities to elect representatives to the ERC. The PNCR pointed out that the IRO represented a duplication of religious bodies, (Christian, Muslim and Hindu), that were already represented on the Commission.
OBSESSION WITH THE BISHOP
The constitution allows up to fifteen persons to be appointed to the ERC, consequently, if the PPP were seriously interested in wider representation on that body, one would have expected a willingness to discuss the extended membership within the context of the inclusion of other bodies that were previously excluded.
Their marked reluctance to agree to the inclusion of others entities, such as professional organisations, as advocated by the PNCR, was therefore suspect. Their real objectives were exposed, however, when they rejected the PNCR’s suggested compromise of adding a new and separate category of entities that were not included in the three categories of religious organisations already represented, such as, the Bahais, The Mystical Apostilic Council and the Rastafarians.
It became obvious that their insistence on the inclusion of this new entity, the IRO, was directly related to their obsession with Bishop Juan Edghill, and their desire to maintain his membership on that Commission as he was unlikely to be renominated by the Christian community.
UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE
The PPP, fortunately, could not unilaterally impose their amendments, as they have done on so many occasions in the past, because the change required a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly. Instead of finding a compromise or proceeding with the already approved entities, that Party opted to stymie the process for the reconstitution of the ERC. They then proceeded to pass, by a simple majority vote, Resolution #36, which stated, inter alia, “That the National Assembly calls on the President to take such steps so as to enable the Ethnic Relations Commission to continue to carry out its constitutional responsibilities in the interim.”
The Opposition members voted against this resolution, which was in contravention of the provisions of Articles 212B (1) (a) and (b) that confers no such authority to the President. The only Constitutional role for the President, in the above process, is to appoint the elected Commissioners representing the approved entities.
PRESIDENTIAL ARROGANCE
In any functioning democracy, where a Government fails to change any Law, they are expected to implement the existing Law until, hopefully, they succeed in having it amended. There is, therefore, no legal or constitutional impediment preventing the proper appointment of a Constitutional ERC.
What has taken place is a refusal of the PPP Administration to honour the Constitution of Guyana, while President Jagdeo unilaterally and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of the entities that should have been allowed to elect their representatives as provided for in the Constitution. President Jagdeo’s recent statement to the media, to wit, “ If they are prepared to move forward with that ( IRO inclusion), clearly we can complete the process”, illustrates his continued contempt for the constitution and the people of Guyana.
He is stating that he will continue to flout the provisions of the Constitution unless the Parliament bows to the wishes of the PPP. His legacy will, indeed, be a tattered one, as recently asserted in an analysis published by the Council for Hemispheric Cooperation.
The views of the stakeholders will not change, whether on not the ERC, the UN or the Government fail to make that report available to the public. They can ignore its findings to their peril.
The Bishop being a purported man of the cloth should be reminded of the admonition found in Matthew 7, Verse 5: of which he ought to be familiar,
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”.

---

---